1. No category

Guidelines on
Prostate Cancer
A. Heidenreich (chairman), M. Bolla, S. Joniau,
M.D. Mason, V. Matveev, N. Mottet, H-P. Schmid,
T.H. van der Kwast, T. Wiegel, F. Zattoni
© European Association of Urology 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Methodology
1.2
Publication history 1.3
References
7
7
7
8
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1 References
8
8
3. CLASSIFICATION
3.1
Gleason score
3.2
References
9
10
10
4. RISK FACTORS
4.1
References
10
10
5. SCREENING AND EARLY DETECTION
5.1
References
11
12
6. DIAGNOSIS
6.1
Digital rectal examination (DRE)
6.2
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)
6.2.1 Free/total PSA ratio (f/t PSA)
6.2.2 PSA velocity (PSAV), PSA doubling time (PSADT)
6.2.3 PCA3 marker
6.3
Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)
6.4
Prostate biopsy
6.4.1 Baseline biopsy
6.4.2 Repeat biopsy
6.4.3 Saturation biopsy
6.4.4 Sampling sites and number of cores
6.4.5 Diagnostic transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)
6.4.6 Seminal vesicle biopsy
6.4.7 Transition zone biopsy
6.4.8 Antibiotics
6.4.9 Local anaesthesia
6.4.10 Fine-needle aspiration biopsy
6.4.11 Complications
6.5
Pathology of prostate needle biopsies
6.5.1 Grossing and processing
6.5.2 Microscopy and reporting
6.6
Pathohistology of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens
6.6.1 Processing of the RP specimen
6.6.1.1 Recommendations for processing a prostatectomy specimen
6.6.2 RP specimen report
6.6.2.1 Gleason score
6.6.2.2 Interpreting the Gleason score
6.6.2.3 Definition of extraprostatic extension
6.6.3 Prostate cancer volume
6.6.4 Surgical margin status
6.6.5 Other factors
6.7
References
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
7. 25
25
26
27
28
29
2
STAGING
7.1 T-staging
7.2 N-staging
7.3 M-staging
7.4 Guidelines for the diagnosis and staging of PCa
7.5 References UPDATE JANUARY 2011
8. TREATMENT: DEFERRED TREATMENT (WATCHFUL WAITING/ACTIVE MONITORING)
8.1
Introduction
8.1.1 Definition
8.1.1.1 Watchful waiting (WW) 8.1.1.2 Active surveillance (AS) 8.2
Deferred treatment of localised PCa (stage T1-T2, Nx-N0, M0)
8.2.1 Watchful waiting (WW)
8.2.2 Active surveillance
8.3
Deferred treatment for locally advanced PCa (stage T3-T4, Nx-N0, M0)
8.4
Deferred treatment for metastatic PCa (stage M1)
8.5
Summary of deferred treatment
8.6
References
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
36
38
38
39
39
9. TREATMENT: RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY 9.1 Introduction
9.2 Low-risk, localised PCa: cT1-T2a and Gleason score 2-6 and PSA < 10
9.2.1 Stage T1a-T1b PCa
9.2.2 Stage T1c and T2a PCa
9.3
Intermediate-risk, localised PCa: cT2b-T2c or Gleason score = 7 or PSA 10-20
9.3.1 Oncological results of RP in low- and intermediate-risk PCa
9.4 High-risk localised PCa: cT3a or Gleason score 8-10 or PSA > 20
9.4.1 Locally advanced PCa: cT3a
9.4.2 High-grade PCa: Gleason score 8-10
9.4.3 PCa with PSA > 20
9.5 Very high-risk localised prostate cancer: cT3b-T4 N0 or any T, N1
9.5.1 cT3b-T4 N0
9.5.2 Any T, N1
9.6 Summary of RP in high-risk localised disease
9.7 Indication and extent of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (eLND)
9.7.1 Conclusions
9.7.2 Extent of eLND
9.7.3 Therapeutic role of eLND
9.7.4 Morbidity
9.7.5 Summary of eLND
9.8 Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and RP
9.8.1 Summary of neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormonal treatment and RP
9.9 Complications and functional outcome
9.10
Summary of indications for nerve-sparing surgery* (100-104)
9.11 Guidelines and recommendations for radical prostatectomy
9.12 References
43
43
44
44
44
45
45
45
46
46
47
47
47
47
48
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
50
50
50
51
51
10.
58
58
TREATMENT: DEFINITIVE RADIATION THERAPY 10.1
Introduction
10.2Technical aspects: three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity
modulated external beam radiotherapy (IMRT)
10.3
Localised prostate cancer T1-2c N0, M0
10.3.1 T1a-T2a, N0, M0 and Gleason score < 6 and PSA < 10 ng/mL (low-risk group)
10.3.2 T2b or PSA 10-20 ng/mL, or Gleason score 7 (intermediate-risk group)
10.3.3 T2c or Gleason score > 7 or PSA > 20 ng/mL (high-risk group)
10.3.4 Prophylactic irradiation of pelvic lymph nodes in high-risk localised PCa
10.4
Innovative techniques
10.4.1 Intensity modulated radiotherapy
10.4.2 Proton beam and carbon ion beam therapy
10.5
Transperineal brachytherapy
10.6
Late toxicity
10.7
Immediate post-operative external irradiation for pathological tumour stage T3 N0 M0
10.8
Locally advanced PCa: T3-4 N0, M0
10.8.1 Neoadjuvant and concomitant hormonal therapy
10.8.2 Concomitant and long-term adjuvant hormonal therapy
10.8.3 Long-term adjuvant hormonal therapy
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
58
59
59
59
59
60
60
60
60
61
62
63
64
64
64
65
3
10.9
10.10 10.11
10.8.4 Neoadjuvant, concomitant and long-term adjuvant hormonal therapy
10.8.5 Short-term or long-term adjuvant hormonal treatment
10.8.6 Dose escalation with hormonal therapy
Very high-risk PCa: c or pN1, M0
Summary of definitive radiation therapy
References
65
65
65
65
66
66
11.
EXPERIMENTAL LOCAL TREATMENT OF PROSTATE CANCER
11.1
Background
11.2
Cryosurgery of the prostate (CSAP)
11.2.1 Indication for CSAP
11.2.2 Results of modern cryosurgery for PCa
11.2.3 Complications of CSAP for primary treatment of PCa
11.2.4 Summary of CSAP
11.3
HIFU of the prostate
11.3.1 Results of HIFU in PCa
11.3.2 Complications of HIFU
11.4
Focal therapy of PCa
11.4.1 Pre-therapeutic assessment of patients
11.4.2 Patient selection for focal therapy
11.5
Summary of experimental therapeutic options to treat clinically localised PCa
11.6
References
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
73
73
74
74
74
74
75
75
12. HORMONAL THERAPY
12.1 Introduction
12.1.1 Basics of hormonal control of the prostate
12.1.2 Different types of hormonal therapy
12.2
Testosterone-lowering therapy (castration) 12.2.1 Castration level
12.2.2 Bilateral orchiectomy
12.3
Oestrogens
12.3.1 Diethylstilboesterol (DES)
12.3.2 Renewed interest in oestrogens 12.3.3 Strategies to counteract the cardiotoxicity of oestrogen therapy
12.3.4 Conclusions
12.4
LHRH agonists
12.4.1 Achievement of castration levels
12.4.2 Flare-up phenomenon
12.5
LHRH antagonists
12.5.1 Abarelix
12.5.2 Degarelix
12.5.3 Conclusions
12.6
Anti-androgens
12.6.1 Steroidal anti-androgens
12.6.1.1Cyproterone acetate (CPA) 12.6.1.2Megestrol acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate
12.6.2 Non-steroidal anti-androgens
12.6.2.1Nilutamide
12.6.2.2Flutamide
12.6.2.3Bicalutamide
12.7
Combination therapies 12.7.1 Complete androgen blockade (CAB)
12.7.2 Minimal androgen blockade (or peripheral androgen blockade)
12.7.3 Intermittent versus continuous ADT
12.7.4 Immediate vs deferred ADT
12.8
Indications for hormonal therapy
12.9
Contraindications for various therapies (Table 19)
12.10 Outcome
12.11 Side-effects, QoL, and cost of hormonal therapy
12.11.1 Sexual function
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
78
78
78
78
78
78
79
79
79
79
80
80
80
80
80
81
81
81
81
82
83
83
83
84
86
87
88
88
88
88
4
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
12.11.2 Hot flashes
12.11.2.1 Hormonal therapy
12.11.2.2 Antidepressants
12.11.3 Other systemic side-effects of ADT
12.11.3.1 Non-metastatic bone fractures
12.11.3.2 Lipid levels
12.11.3.3 Metabolic syndrome
12.11.3.4 Cardiovascular disease
12.12 Quality of life (QoL)
12.13 Cost-effectiveness of hormonal therapy options
12.14 Guidelines for hormonal therapy in prostate cancer
12.15 References
13. SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES ON PRIMARY TREATMENT OF PCa
88
88
88
89
89
90
90
90
90
91
91
91
102
14. FOLLOW-UP: AFTER TREATMENT WITH CURATIVE INTENT
14.1 Definition
14.2 Why follow-up?
14.3 How to follow-up?
14.3.1 PSA monitoring
14.3.2 Definition of PSA progression
14.3.3 PSA monitoring after radical prostatectomy
14.3.4 PSA monitoring after radiation therapy
14.3.5 Digital rectal examination (DRE)
14.3.6 Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and biopsy
14.3.7 Bone scintigraphy
14.3.8 Computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
14.4 When to follow-up?
14.5 Guidelines for follow-up after treatment with curative intent
14.6 References
103
103
103
103
104
104
104
104
104
105
105
105
105
105
106
15. FOLLOW-UP AFTER HORMONAL TREATMENT
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Purpose of follow-up
15.3 Methods of follow-up
15.3.1 Prostate-specific antigen monitoring
15.3.2 Creatinine, haemoglobin and liver function monitoring
15.3.3 Bone scan, ultrasound and chest X-ray 15.4
Testosterone monitoring
15.5 Monitoring of metabolic complications 15.6 When to follow-up
15.6.1 Stage M0 patients
15.6.2 Stage M1 patients
15.6.3 Castration-refractory PCa
15.7 Guidelines for follow-up after hormonal treatment
15.8
References 107
107
107
107
107
108
108
108
109
109
109
109
109
109
110
16. TREATMENT OF BIOCHEMICAL FAILURE AFTER TREATMENT WITH CURATIVE INTENT
16.1 Background
16.2
Definitions
16.2.1 Definition of treatment failure
16.2.2 Definition of recurrence
16.3
Local or systemic relapse
16.3.1 Definition of local and systemic failure
16.4
Evaluation of PSA progression
16.4.1 Diagnostic procedures for PSA relapse following RP
16.4.2 Diagnostic studies for PSA relapse following radiation therapy
16.4.3 Diagnostic procedures in patients with PSA relapse
16.5
Treatment of PSA-only recurrences
16.5.1 Radiation therapy for PSA-only recurrence after radical prostatectomy
112
112
112
112
113
113
113
113
114
115
116
116
116
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
5
16.5.1.1Dose, target volume, toxicity
16.5.2 Hormonal therapy
16.5.2.1Adjuvant hormonal therapy after radical prostatectomy
16.5.2.2Post-operative HT for PSA-only recurrence 16.5.3 Observation
16.5.4 Management of PSA relapse after RP
16.6
Management of PSA failures after radiation therapy
16.6.1 Salvage RP
16.6.1.1Summary of salvage RRP
16.6.2 Salvage cryosurgical ablation of the prostate (CSAP) for radiation failures
16.6.3 Salvage brachytherapy for radiation failures
16.6.4 Observation
16.6.5 High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)
16.6.6 Recommendation for the management of PSA relapse after radiation therapy
16.7
Guidelines for second-line therapy after treatment with curative intent
16.8
References
117
118
118
118
120
120
120
120
121
121
121
122
122
123
123
123
17.
CASTRATION-REFRACTORY PCa (CRPC) 17.1 Background
17.1.1 Androgen-receptor-independent mechanisms
17.1.2 AR-dependent mechanisms
17.2
Definition of relapsing prostate cancer after castration
17.3
Assessing treatment outcome in androgen-independent PCa
17.3.1 PSA level as marker of response
17.3.2 Other parameters
17.3.3 Trial end-points
17.4
Recommendations for assessing therapeutic response
17.5
Androgen deprivation in castration-independent PCa
17.6
Secondary hormonal therapy
17.7
Anti-androgen withdrawal syndrome
17.8
Treatment alternatives after initial hormonal therapy
17.8.1 Bicalutamide
17.8.2 Switching to an alternative anti-androgen therapy
17.8.3 Anti-androgen withdrawal accompanied by simultaneous ketoconazole
17.8.4 Oestrogens
17.8.5 The future for anti-androgen agents
17.8.5.1MDV3100
17.8.5.2Abiraterone acetate
17.9
Non-hormonal therapy (cytotoxic agents)
17.9.1 Timing of chemotherapy in metastatic HRPC
17.9.2 Taxanes in combination therapy for HRPC
17.9.3 Mitoxantrone combined with corticosteroids
17.9.4 Alternative combination treatment approaches
17.9.5 Estramustine in combination therapies
17.9.6 Oral cyclophosphamide 17.9.7 Cisplatin and carboplatin
17.9.8 Suramin
17.9.9 Non-cytotoxic drugs: the vaccines
17.9.10 Specific bone targets
17.9.11 Salvage chemotherapy
17.10 Palliative therapeutic options
17.10.1 Painful bone metastases
17.10.2 Common complications due to bone metastases
17.10.3 Bisphosphonates
17.11 Summary of treatment after hormonal therapy 17.12 Recommendations for cytotoxic therapy in CRPC
17.13 Recommendations for palliative management of CRPC
17.14 References
130
130
130
131
131
132
132
132
132
133
133
133
134
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
135
136
136
136
137
137
137
137
137
138
138
138
138
139
139
139
139
139
140
140
140
18.
151
6
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
1. INTRODUCTION
The European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines Group for Prostate Cancer have prepared this
guidelines document to assist medical professionals assess the evidence-based management of prostate
cancer. The multidisciplinary panel of experts include urologists, radiation oncologists, a medical oncologist,
and a pathologist.
Where possible a level of evidence (LE) and/or grade of recommendation (GR) have been assigned
(1). Recommendations are graded in order to provide transparency between the underlying evidence and the
recommendation given (Tables 1 and 2).
It has to be emphasised that the current guidelines contain information for the treatment of an
individual patient according to a standardised general approach.
1.1
Methodology
The recommendations provided in the current guidelines are based on a systemic literature search performed
by the panel members (1). MedLine, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify
original articles, review articles and editorials addressing “epidemiology”, “risk factors”, “diagnosis”,
“staging” and “treatment” of prostate cancer. The controlled vocabulary of the Medical Subject Headings
(MeSH) database was used alongside a “free-text” protocol, combining “prostate cancer” with the terms
“diagnosis”, “screening”, “staging”, “active surveillance”, “radical prostatectomy”, “external beam radiation”,
“brachytherapy”, “androgen deprivation”, “chemotherapy”, “relapse”, “salvage treatment”, and “follow-up” to
ensure sensitivity of the searches.
All articles published between January 2009 (previous update) and January 2010 were considered for
review. A total of 11,834 records were identified in all databases. The expert panel reviewed these records to
select the articles with the highest evidence, according to a rating schedule adapted from the Oxford Centre for
Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (Table 1) (2).
1.2
Publication history
The Prostate Cancer Guidelines were first published in 2001, with partial updates in 2003 and 2007, followed
by a full text update in 2009. This 2010 publication presents a considerable update: all sections, but for
Chapters 2 (Background), 4 (Risk Factors), 7 (Staging) and 14 (Follow-up after primary treatment with curative
intent), have been revised. A number of different versions of these Prostate Cancer Guidelines are available,
including a quick reference guide and several translated documents. All texts can be viewed and downloaded
for personal use at the society website: http://www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/.
Table 1: Level of evidence
Level
Type of evidence
1a
Evidence obtained from meta-analysis of randomised trials
1b
Evidence obtained from at least one randomised trial
2a
Evidence obtained from one well-designed controlled study without randomisation
2b
Evidence obtained from at least one other type of well-designed quasi-experimental study
3
vidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental studies, such as comparative studies,
E
correlation studies and case reports
4
vidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions or clinical experience of respected
E
authorities
Modified from Sackett et al. (2).
Table 2: Grade of recommendation
Grade
Nature of recommendations
A
ased on clinical studies of good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendations
B
and including at least one randomised trial
B
Based on well-conducted clinical studies, but without randomised clinical trials
C
Made despite the absence of directly applicable clinical studies of good quality
Modified from Sackett et al. (2).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
7
1.3
References
1. Aus G, Chapple C, Hanûs T, et al. The European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines
Methodology: A Critical Evaluation. Eur Urol 2009 Nov;56(5):859-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18657895
Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence (May 2001). Produced by Bob
Phillips, Chris Ball, Dave Sackett, Doug Badenoch, Sharon Straus, Brian Haynes, Martin Dawes since
November 1998. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 [accessed Jan 2011].
2.
2. BACKGROUND
Cancer of the prostate (PCa) is now recognised as one of the most important medical problems facing the male
population. In Europe, PCa is the most common solid neoplasm, with an incidence rate of 214 cases per 1000
men, outnumbering lung and colorectal cancer (1). Furthermore, PCa is currently the second most common
cause of cancer death in men (2). In addition, since 1985, there has been a slight increase in most countries in
the number of deaths from PCa, even in countries or regions where PCa is not common (3).
Prostate cancer affects elderly men more often than young men. It is therefore a bigger health concern
in developed countries with their greater proportion of elderly men. Thus, about 15% of male cancers are PCa
in developed countries compared to 4% of male cancers in undeveloped countries (4). It is worth mentioning
that there are large regional differences in incidence rates of PCa. For example, in Sweden, where there is
a long life expectancy and mortality from smoking-related diseases is relatively modest, PCa is the most
common malignancy in males, accounting for 37% of all new cases of cancer in 2004 (5).
2.1 References
1.
Boyle P, Ferlay J. Cancer incidence and mortality in Europe 2004. Ann Oncol 2005 Mar;16(3):481-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15718248
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008 Mar;58(2):71-96.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18287387
Quinn M, Babb P. Patterns and trends in prostate cancer incidence, survival, prevalence and mortality.
Part I: international comparisons. BJU Int 2002 Jul;90(2):162-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12081758
Parkin DM, Bray FI, Devesa SS. Cancer burden in the year 2000: the global picture. Eur J Cancer 2001
Oct;37(Suppl 8):S4-66.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11602373
Cancer incidence in Sweden 2004. The National Board of Health and Welfare: Stockholm.
http://sjp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/34/67_suppl/3.pdf
2.
3.
4.
5.
8
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
3. CLASSIFICATION
The 2009 TNM (Tumour Node Metastasis) classification for PCa is shown in Table 3 (1).
Table 3: Tumour Node Metastasis (TNM) classification of PCa*
T - Primary tumour
TX Primary tumour cannot be assessed
T0 No evidence of primary tumour
T1 Clinically inapparent tumour not palpable or visible by imaging
T1a
Tumour incidental histological finding in 5% or less of tissue resected
T1b
Tumour incidental histological finding in more than 5% of tissue resected
T1c
Tumour identified by needle biopsy (e.g. because of elevated prostate-specific antigen [PSA]
level)
T2 Tumour confined within the prostate1
T2a
Tumour involves one half of one lobe or less
T2b
Tumour involves more than half of one lobe, but not both lobes
T2c
Tumour involves both lobes
T3 Tumour extends through the prostatic capsule2
T3aExtracapsular extension (unilateral or bilateral) including microscopic bladder neck
involvement
T3b
Tumour invades seminal vesicle(s)
T4Tumour is fixed or invades adjacent structures other than seminal vesicles: external sphincter, rectum,
levator muscles, and/or pelvic wall
N - Regional lymph nodes3
NX
Regional lymph nodes cannot be assessed
N0
No regional lymph node metastasis
N1
Regional lymph node metastasis
M - Distant metastasis4
MX
Distant metastasis cannot be assessed
M0
No distant metastasis
M1
Distant metastasis
M1a
Non-regional lymph node(s)
M1b
Bone(s)
M1c
Other site(s)
1 Tumour found in one or both lobes by needle biopsy, but not palpable or visible by imaging, is classified as
T1c.
2 Invasion into the prostatic apex, or into (but not beyond) the prostate capsule, is not classified as pT3, but
as pT2.
3 Metastasis no larger than 0.2 cm can be designated pN1 mi.
4 When more than one site of metastasis is present, the most advanced category should be used.
Prognostic grouping
T1a-c
N0 M0 PSA < 10
Gleason < 6
Gleason < 6
T2a
N0 M0 PSA < 10
Group IIA
T1a-c
N0 M0 PSA < 20
Gleason 7
Gleason < 6
T1a-c
N0 M0 PSA > 10 < 20
Gleason < 7
T2a, b
N0 M0 PSA < 20
Group IIb
T2c
N0 M0 Any PSA
Any Gleason
>
Any Gleason
T1-2
N0 M0 PSA 20
Gleason > 8
T1-2
N0 M0 Any PSA
Group III
T3a, b
N0 M0 Any PSA
Any Gleason
Group IV
T4
N0 M0 Any PSA
Any Gleason
Any T
N1 M0 Any PSA
Any Gleason
Any T
Any N M0 Any PSA
Any Gleason
Note: W
hen either PSA or Gleason is not available, grouping should be determined by cT category and
whichever of either PSA of Gleason is available. When neither is available prognostic grouping is not
possible, use stage grouping
Group I
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
9
3.1
Gleason score
The Gleason score is the most commonly used system for grading adenocarcinoma of the prostate (2). The
Gleason score can only be assessed using biopsy material (core biopsy or operative specimens). Cytological
preparations cannot be used. The Gleason score is the sum of the two most common patterns (grades 1-5)
of tumour growth found. The Gleason score ranges between 2 and 10, with 2 being the least aggressive and
10 the most aggressive. In needle biopsy, it is recommended that the worst grade always should be included,
even if it is present in < 5% of biopsy material (3).
3.2
References
1.
Sobin LH, Gospodariwicz M, Wittekind C (eds). TNM classification of malignant tumors. UICC
International Union Against Cancer. 7th edn. Wiley-Blackwell, 2009 Dec; pp. 243-248.
http://www.uicc.org/tnm/
Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined
histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974 Jan;111(1):58-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4813554
Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, et al. Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate
carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005 May; (Suppl);216:20-33.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16019757
2.
3.
4. RISK FACTORS
The factors that determine the risk of developing clinical PCa are not well known, although a few have been
identified. There are three well-established risk factors for PCa: increasing age, ethnical origin and heredity.
If one first-line relative has PCa, the risk is at least doubled. If two or more first-line relatives are affected, the
risk increases 5- to 11-fold (1,2). A small subpopulation of individuals with PCa (about 9%) has true hereditary
PCa. This is defined as three or more affected relatives or at least two relatives who have developed earlyonset disease, i.e. before age 55 (3). Patients with hereditary PCa usually have an onset 6-7 years prior to
spontaneous cases, but do not differ in other ways (4).
The frequency of autopsy-detected cancers is roughly the same in different parts of the world (5). This
finding is in sharp contrast to the incidence of clinical PCa, which differs widely between different geographical
areas, being high in the USA and Northern Europe and low in Southeast Asia (6). However, if Japanese men
move from Japan to Hawaii, their risk of PCa increases; if they move to California their risk increases even
more, approaching that of American men (7) (LE: 2).
These findings indicate that exogenous factors affect the risk of progression from so-called latent
PCa to clinical PCa. Factors such as food consumption, pattern of sexual behaviour, alcohol consumption,
exposure to ultraviolet radiation, and occupational exposure have all been discussed as being of aetiological
importance (8). Prostate cancer is an ideal candidate for exogenous preventive measures, such as dietary
and pharmacological prevention, due to some specific features: high prevalence, long latency, endocrine
dependency, availability of serum markers (PSA), and histological precursor lesions (PIN). Dietary/nutritional
factors that may influence disease development include total energy intake (as reflected by body mass index),
dietary fat, cooked meat, micronutrients and vitamins (carotenoids, retinoids, vitamins C, D, and E), fruit and
vegetable intake, minerals (calcium, selenium), and phyto-oestrogens (isoflavonoids, flavonoids, lignans). Since
most studies reported to date are case-control analyses, there remain more questions than evidence-based
data available to answer them. Several ongoing large randomised trials are trying to clarify the role of such risk
factors and the potential for successful prostate cancer prevention (9).
In summary, hereditary factors are important in determining the risk of developing clinical PCa, while
exogenous factors may have an important impact on this risk. The key question is whether there is enough
evidence to recommend lifestyle changes (lowered intake of animal fat and increased intake of fruit, cereals,
and vegetables) in order to decrease the risk (10). There is some evidence to support such a recommendation
and this information can be given to male relatives of PCa patients who ask about the impact of diet (LE: 2-3).
4.1
References
1.
Steinberg GD, Carter BS, Beaty TH, et al. Family history and the risk of prostate cancer. Prostate
1990;17(4):337-47.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2251225
10
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Gronberg H, Damber L, Damber JE. Familial prostate cancer in Sweden. A nationwide register cohort
study. Cancer 1996 Jan;77(1):138-43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8630920
Carter BS, Beaty TH, Steinberg GD, et al. Mendelian inheritance of familial prostate cancer. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 1992 Apr;89(8):3367-71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1565627
Bratt O. Hereditary prostate cancer: clinical aspects. J Urol 2002 Sep;168(3):906-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12187189
Breslow N, Chan CW, Dhom G, et al. Latent carcinoma of prostate at autopsy in seven areas. The
International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyons, France. Int J Cancer 1977 Nov;20(5):680-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/924691
Quinn M, Babb P. Patterns and trends in prostate cancer incidence, survival, prevalence and mortality.
Part I: international comparisons. BJU Int 2002 Jul;90(2):162-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12081758
Zaridze DG, Boyle P, Smans M. International trends in prostatic cancer. Int J Cancer 1984 Feb;33(2):
223-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6693200
Kolonel LN, Altshuler D, Henderson BE. The multiethnic cohort study: exploring genes, lifestyle and
cancer risk. Nat Rev Cancer 2004 Jul;4(7):519-27.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15229477
Schmid H-P, Engeler DS, Pummer K, et al. Prevention of prostate cancer: more questions than data.
Cancer Prevention. Recent Results Cancer Res 2007;174:101-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17302190
Schulman CC, Zlotta AR, Denis L, et al. Prevention of prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol
2000;205(Suppl):50-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144904
5. SCREENING AND EARLY DETECTION
Population or mass screening is defined as the examination of asymptomatic men (at risk). It usually takes
place as part of a trial or study and is initiated by the screener. In contrast, early detection or opportunistic
screening comprises individual case findings, which are initiated by the person being screened (patient) and/or
his physician. The primary endpoint of both types of screening has two aspects:
1.Reduction in mortality from PCa. The goal is not to detect more carcinomas, nor is survival the
endpoint because survival is strongly influenced by lead-time from diagnosis.
2.The quality of life is important as expressed by quality-of-life adjusted gain in life years (QUALYs).
Prostate cancer mortality trends range widely from country to country in the industrialised world (1).
Decreased mortality rates due to PCa have occurred in the USA, Austria, UK, and France, while in Sweden
the 5-year survival rate has increased from 1960 to 1988, probably due to increased diagnostic activity and
greater detection of non-lethal tumours (2). However, this trend was not confirmed in a similar study from
the Netherlands (3). The reduced mortality seen recently in the USA is often attributed to the widely adopted
aggressive screening policy, but there is still no absolute proof prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening
reduces mortality due to PCa (4) (LE: 2).
A non-randomised screening project in Tyrol (Austria) may support the hypothesis that screening can
be effective in reducing mortality from PCa. An early detection programme and free treatment have been used
to explain the 33% decrease in the PCa mortality rate seen in Tyrol compared to the rest of Austria (5) (LE: 2b).
In addition, a Canadian study has claimed lower mortality rates in men randomised to active PCa screening
(6), though these results have been challenged (7). Positive findings attributed to screening have also been
contradicted by a comparative study between the US city of Seattle area (highly screened population) and the
US state of Connecticut (seldom screened population) (8). The study found no difference in the reduction in the
rate of PCa mortality (LE: 2b), even allowing for the very great diversity in PSA testing and treatment.
The long awaited results of two prospective, randomised trials were published in 2009. The Prostate,
Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial randomly assigned 76,693 men at 10 US centres
to receive either annual screening with PSA and DRE or standard care as the control. After 7 years’ follow-up,
the incidence of PCa per 10,000 person-years was 116 (2,820 cancers) in the screening group and 95 (2,322
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
11
cancers) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.22) (9). The incidence of death per 10,000 person-years was 2.0 (50
deaths) in the screened group and 1.7 (44 deaths) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.13). The data at 10 years
were 67% complete and consistent with these overall findings. The PLCO project team concluded that PCarelated mortality was very low and not significantly different between the two study groups (LE: 1b).
The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) included a total of
162,243 men from seven countries aged between 55 and 69 years. The men were randomly assigned to a
group offered PSA screening at an average of once every 4 years or to an unscreened control group. During a
median follow-up of 9 years, the cumulative incidence of PCa was 8.2% in the screened group and 4.8% in the
control group (10). The rate ratio for death from PCa was 0.80 in the screened group compared with the control
group. The absolute risk difference was 0.71 deaths per 1,000 men. This means that 1410 men would need
to be screened and 48 additional cases of PCa would need to be treated to prevent one death from PCa. The
ERSPC investigators concluded that PSA-based screening reduced the rate of death from PCa by 20%, but
was associated with a high risk of over-diagnosis (LE: 1b).
Both trials have received considerable attention and comments. In the PLCO trial, the rate
of compliance in the screening arm was 85% for PSA testing and 86% for DRE. However, the rate of
contamination in the control arm was as high as 40% in the first year and increased to 52% in the sixth year for
PSA testing and ranged from 41% to 46% for DRE. Furthermore, biopsy compliance was only 40-52% versus
86% in the ERSPC. Thus, the PLCO trial will probably never be able to answer whether or not screening can
influence PCa mortality.
In the ERSCP trial, the real benefit will only be evident after 10-15 years of follow-up, especially
because the 41% reduction of metastasis in the screening arm will have an impact.
Based on the results of these two large, randomised trials, most if not all of the major urological
societies conclude that at present widespread mass screening for PCa is not appropriate. Rather, early
detection (opportunistic screening) should be offered to the well-informed man (see also Section 6, Diagnosis).
Two key items remain open and empirical:
•
at what age should early detection start;
•
what is the interval for PSA and DRE.
A baseline PSA determination at age 40 years has been suggested upon which the subsequent screening
interval may then be based (11) (GR: B). A screening interval of 8 years might be enough in men with initial PSA
levels < 1 ng/mL (12). Further PSA testing is not necessary in men older than 75 years and a baseline PSA < 3
ng/mL because of their very low risk of dying from PCa (13).
5.1
References
1.
Oliver SE, May MT, Gunnell D. International trends in prostate-cancer mortality in the ‘PSA-ERA’. Int J
Cancer 2001 Jun;92(6):893-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11351313
Helgesen F, Holmberg L, Johansson JE, et al. Trends in prostate cancer survival in Sweden, 1960
through 1988, evidence of increasing diagnosis of non-lethal tumours. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996
Sep;88(17):1216-21.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8780631
Post PN, Kil PJ, Coebergh JW. Trends in survival of prostate cancer in southeastern Netherlands
1971-1989. Int J Cancer 1999 May;81(4):551-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10225443
Ilic D, O’Connor D, Green S, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review.
Cancer Causes Control 2007 Apr;18(3):279-85.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17206534
Bartsch G, Horninger W, Klocker H, et al; Tyrol Prostate Cancer Screening Group. Prostate cancer
mortality after introduction of prostate specific antigen mass screening in the Federal State of Tyrol,
Austria. Urology 2001 Sep;58(3):417-24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11549491
Labrie F, Candas B, Dupont A, et al. Screening decreases prostate cancer death: first analysis of the
1988 Quebec prospective randomized controlled trial. Prostate 1999;38(2):83-91.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9973093
Boer R, Schroeder FH. Quebec randomized controlled trial on prostate cancer screening shows no
evidence of mortality reduction. Prostate 1999 Feb;40(2):130-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10386474
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
12
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
8.
9. 10.
11.
12.
13. Lu-Yao G, Albertsen PC, Stamford JL, et al. Natural experiment examining impact of aggressive
screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from Seattle area and
Connecticut. BMJ 2002 Oct;325(7367):740.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12364300
Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al; PLCO Project Team. Mortality results from a
randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1310-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19297565
Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer
mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009 Mar 26;360(13):1320-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19297566
Börgermann C, Loertzer H, Hammerer P, et al. [Problems, objective, and substance of early detection
of prostate cancer]. Urologe A 2010 Feb;49(2):181-9. [Article in German]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20180057
Roobol MJ, Roobol DW, Schröder FH. Is additional testing necessary in men with prostate-specific
antigen levels of 1.0 ng/mL or less in a population-based screening setting? (ERSPC, section
Rotterdam). Urology 2005 Feb;65(2):343-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15708050
Carter HB, Kettermann AE, Ferrucci L, et al. Prostate specific antigen testing among the elderly; when
to stop? J Urol 2008 Apr:174(2)( Suppl 1):600 abstract #1751.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246059
6. DIAGNOSIS*
The main diagnostic tools to obtain evidence of PCa include DRE, serum concentration of PSA and transrectal
ultrasonography (TRUS). Its definite diagnosis depends on the presence of adenocarcinoma in prostate biopsy
cores or operative specimens. Histopathological examination also allows grading and determination of the
extent of the tumour.
6.1
Digital rectal examination (DRE)
Most prostate cancers are located in the peripheral zone of the prostate and may be detected by DRE when
the volume is about 0.2 mL or larger. A suspect DRE is an absolute indication for prostate biopsy. In about
18% of all patients, PCa is detected by a suspect DRE alone, irrespective of the PSA level (1) (LE: 2a). A
suspect DRE in patients with a PSA level of up to 2 ng/mL has a positive predictive value of 5-30% (2) (LE: 2a).
6.2
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA)
The measurement of PSA level has revolutionised the diagnosis of PCa (3). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is
a kallikrein-like serine protease produced almost exclusively by the epithelial cells of the prostate. For practical
purposes, it is organ-specific but not cancer-specific. Thus, serum levels may be elevated in the presence of
benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), prostatitis and other non-malignant conditions. The level of PSA as an
independent variable is a better predictor of cancer than suspicious findings on DRE or TRUS (4).
There are many different commercial test kits for measuring PSA, but no commonly agreed
international standard exists (5). The level of PSA is a continuous parameter: the higher the value, the more
likely is the existence of PCa (Table 4). This means there is no universally accepted cut-off or upper limit. The
finding that many men may harbour PCa, despite low levels of serum PSA, has been underscored by recent
results from a US prevention study (6) (LE: 2a). Table 4 gives the rate of PCa in relation to serum PSA for 2,950
men in the placebo-arm and with normal PSA values.
* Acknowledgment: Section 6.4 is partly based on the Guidelines of the AUO Study Group Urologic Oncology of the Austrian
Society of Urologists and Andrologists (W. Höltl, W. Loidl, M. Rauchenwald, M. Müller, M. Klimpfinger, A. Schratter-Sehn,
C. Brössner).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
13
Table 4: Risk of PCa in relation to low PSA values
PSA level (ng/mL)
0-0.5
0.6-1
1.1-2
2.1-3
3.1-4
Risk of PCa
6.6%
10.1%
17.0%
23.9%
26.9%
PSA = prostate-specific antigen.
These findings highlight an important issue about lowering the PSA-level threshold, which is how to avoid
detecting insignificant cancers with a natural history unlikely to be life threatening (7). As yet, there is no
long-term data to help determine the optimal PSA threshold value for detecting non-palpable, but clinically
significant, PCa (LE: 3).
Several modifications of serum PSA value have been described, which may improve the specificity
of PSA in the early detection of PCa. They include: PSA density, PSA density of the transition zone, agespecific reference ranges, and PSA molecular forms. However, these derivatives and certain PSA isoforms
(cPSA, proPSA, BPSA, iPSA) have limited usefulness in the routine clinical setting and have therefore not been
considered for inclusion in these guidelines.
6.2.1 Free/total PSA ratio (f/t PSA)
The free/total PSA ratio (f/t PSA) is the concept most extensively investigated and most widely used in
clinical practice to discriminate BPH from PCa. The ratio is used to stratify the risk of PCa for men who have
total PSA levels between 4 and 10 ng/mL and a negative DRE. In a prospective multicentre trial, PCa was
found on biopsy in 56% of men with a f/t PSA < 0.10, but in only 8% of men with f/t PSA > 0.25 (8) (LE:
2a). Nevertheless, the concept must be used with caution as several pre-analytical and clinical factors may
influence the f/t PSA. For example, free PSA is unstable at both 4°C and at room temperature. In addition,
assay characteristics may vary and concomitant BPH in large prostates may result in a ‘dilution effect’ (9).
Furthermore, f/t PSA is clinically useless in total serum PSA values > 10 ng/mL and in follow-up of patients with
known PCa.
6.2.2 PSA velocity (PSAV), PSA doubling time (PSADT)
There are two methods of measuring PSA over time. These are:
•
PSA velocity (PSAV), defined as an absolute annual increase in serum PSA (ng/mL/year) (10) (LE: 1b);
•
PSA doubling time (PSADT), which measures the exponential increase of serum PSA over time,
reflecting a relative change (11).
These two concepts may have a prognostic role in patients with treated PCa (12). However, they have limited
use in the diagnosis of PCa because of background noise (total volume of prostate, BPH), the variations
in interval between PSA determinations, and acceleration/deceleration of PSAV and PSADT over time.
Prospective studies have shown that these measurements do not provide additional information compared to
PSA alone (13-16).
6.2.3 PCA3 marker
In contrast to the serum markers discussed above, the prostate specific non-coding mRNA marker, PCA3, is
measured in urine sediment obtained after prostatic massage. The main advantages of PCA3 over PSA are its
somewhat higher sensitivity and specificity. The level of PCA3 shows slight but significant increases in the AUC
for positive biopsies (17), but is not influenced by prostate volume or prostatitis (18-20). There is conflicting
data about whether PCA3 levels are related to tumour aggressiveness. Although PCA3 may have potential
value for identifying prostate cancer in men with initially negative biopsies in spite of an elevated PSA, the
determination of PCA3 remains experimental. In the near future, several molecular diagnostic tests may move
out of the laboratory into the clinical setting, e.g. detection of prostate cancer specific TMPRSS2-erg fusion
genes in urine sediments after massage (21,22).
So far, none of the above biomarkers are being used routinely to counsel an individual patient on the
need to perform a prostate biopsy to rule out PCa.
6.3
Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)
The classic picture of a hypoechoic area in the peripheral zone of the prostate will not always be seen (23).
Gray-scale TRUS does not detect areas of PCa with adequate reliability. It is therefore not useful to replace
systematic biopsies with targeted biopsies of suspect areas. However, additional biopsies of suspect areas
may be useful.
14
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
6.4
Prostate biopsy
6.4.1 Baseline biopsy
The need for prostate biopsies should be determined on the basis of the PSA level and/or a suspicious DRE.
The patient’s biological age, potential co-morbidities (ASA Index and Charlson Comorbidity Index), and the
therapeutic consequences should also be considered.
The first elevated PSA level should not prompt an immediate biopsy. The PSA level should be verified
after a few weeks by the same assay under standardised conditions (i.e. no ejaculation and no manipulations,
such as catheterisation, cystoscopy or TUR, and no urinary tract infections) in the same diagnostic laboratory,
using the same methods (24,25) (LE: 2a).
It is now considered the standard of care to perform prostate biopsies guided by ultrasound. Although
a transrectal approach is used for most prostate biopsies, some urologists prefer to use a perineal approach.
The cancer detection rates of perineal prostate biopsies are comparable to those obtained of transrectal
biopsies (26,27) (LE: 1b).
The ultrasound-guided perineal approach is a useful alternative in special situations, e.g. after rectal
amputation.
6.4.2 Repeat biopsy
The indications for a repeat biopsy are:
•
rising and/or persistent PSA, suspicious DRE;
•
atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP).
The optimal timing of a repeat biopsy is uncertain. It depends on the histological outcome of the baseline ASAP
biopsy and the index of a persistent suspicion of PCa (high or dramatically rising PSA, suspect DRE, family
history). The later the repeat biopsy is done, the higher the detection rate (28).
High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) as an isolated finding is no longer considered an
indication for re-biopsy (29) (LE: 2a). A repeat biopsy should therefore be prompted by other clinical features,
such as DRE findings and PSA level. If PIN is extensive (i.e. in multiple biopsy sites), this could be a reason
for early re-biopsy as the risk of subsequent prostate cancer is slightly increased (30). If clinical suspicion for
prostate cancer persists in spite of negative prostate biopsies, MRI may be used to investigate the possibility
of an anterior located prostate cancer, followed by TRUS or MRI-guided biopsies of the suspicious area (31).
6.4.3 Saturation biopsy
The incidence of PCa detected by saturation repeat biopsy is between 30% and 43% and depends on the
number of cores sampled during earlier biopsies (32) (LE: 2a). In special situations, saturation biopsy may be
performed with the transperineal technique. This will detect an additional 38% of PCa. The high rate of urinary
retention (10%) is a drawback (3D-stereotactic biopsy) (33) (LE: 2b).
6.4.4 Sampling sites and number of cores
On baseline biopsies, the sample sites should be as far posterior and lateral as possible in the peripheral
gland. Additional cores should be obtained from suspect areas by DRE/TRUS. These should be chosen on an
individual basis.
Sextant biopsy is no longer considered adequate. At a glandular volume of 30-40 mL, at least eight
cores should be sampled. More than 12 cores are not significantly more conclusive (34) (LE: 1a). The British
Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment Study has recommended 10-core biopsies (35) (LE: 2a).
6.4.5 Diagnostic transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)
The use of diagnostic TURP instead of repeat biopsies is of minor importance. Its detection rate is no better
than 8% and makes it a poor tool for cancer detection (36) (LE: 2a).
6.4.6 Seminal vesicle biopsy
Indications for seminal vesicle biopsies are poorly defined. At PSA levels > 15-20 ng/mL, a biopsy is only
useful if the outcome will have a decisive impact on treatment, i.e. if the biopsy result rules out radical removal
for tumour involvement or radiotherapy with intent to cure. At PSA levels > 15-20 ng/mL, the odds of tumour
involvement are 20-25% (37) (LE: 2a).
6.4.7 Transition zone biopsy
Transition zone (TZ) sampling during baseline biopsies provides a very low detection rate and TZ sampling
should therefore be confined to repeat biopsies (38) (LE: 1b).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
15
6.4.8 Antibiotics
Oral or intravenous antibiotics are state-of-the-art treatment. Optimal dosing and treatment time vary.
Quinolones are the drugs of choice, with ciprofloxacin superior to ofloxacin (39) (LE: 1b).
6.4.9 Local anaesthesia
Ultrasound-guided peri-prostatic block is state-of-the-art (40) (LE: 1b). It does not make any difference whether
the depot is apical or basal. Intrarectal instillation of a local anaesthetic is clearly inferior to peri-prostatic
infiltration (41) (LE: 1b).
6.4.10 Fine-needle aspiration biopsy
Fine-needle aspiration biopsy is not as effective as TRUS-guided transrectal core biopsy because of the lack
of uropathologists experienced in cytology. In addition, TRUS-guided transrectal core biopsies provide more
information on the Gleason score and on the extent of the tumour.
6.4.11 Complications
Complication rates are low (Table 5) (42). Minor complications include macrohaematuria and haematospermia.
Severe post-procedural infections have been reported in < 1% of cases. The recent increase in the number of
biopsy cores performed has not increased the rate of severe complications requiring treatment.
Low-dose aspirin is no longer an absolute contraindication (43) (LE: 1b).
Table 5: Percentage given per biopsy session, irrespective of the number of cores*
Complications
Haematospermia
Haematuria > 1 day
Rectal bleeding < 2 days
Prostatitis
Fever >38.5°C (101.3°F)
Epididymitis
Rectal bleeding > 2 days ± requiring surgical intervention
Urinary retention
Other complications requiring hospitalization
% of biopsies
37.4
14.5
2.2
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.3
* Adapted from NCCN Guidelines Prostate Cancer Early Detection. V.s.2010 (42).
6.5
Pathology of prostate needle biopsies
6.5.1 Grossing and processing
Prostate core biopsies taken from different sites are usually sent to the pathology laboratory in separate vials
and should be processed in separate cassettes. Before processing, record the number of cores per vial and
length of each core. There is a significant correlation between the length of prostate biopsy tissue on the
histological slide and the detection rate of PCa (44). To achieve optimal flattening and alignment of individual
cores, embed a maximum of three cores per cassette and use sponges or paper to keep the cores stretched
and flat (45,46). To optimise the detection of small lesions, blocks should be cut in three levels (38). It is helpful
to routinely mount intervening tissue sections in case additional immunostaining is needed.
6.5.2 Microscopy and reporting
Diagnosis of prostate cancer is based on histological examination. However, immunostaining may also be
helpful (47,48). Ancillary staining techniques (e.g. basal cell staining) and additional (deeper) sections should
be considered if a suspect glandular lesion is identified (48,49). For suspicious lesions in biopsies, diagnostic
uncertainty may often be resolved by intradepartmental consultation and a second opinion from an external
institution (47). Use concise clear terminology to report prostate biopsies (46) (Table 6) and avoid terms such as
’atypia‘, ’atypical glands‘ or ‘possibly malignant‘.
Table 6: Diagnostic terms used to report prostate biopsy findings*
Benign/negative for malignancy. If appropriate, include a description (e.g. atrophy). Chronic inflammation
may be added (optional)
Active inflammation, negative for malignancy
Atypical adenomatous hyperplasia/adenosis, no evidence of malignancy
16
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
Granulomatous inflammation, negative for malignancy
High-grade PIN, negative for adenocarcinoma
High-grade PIN with atypical glands suspicious for adenocarcinoma
Focus of atypical glands/lesion suspicious for adenocarcinoma
Adenocarcinoma
*From Van der Kwast, 2003 (36).
PIN = prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia.
For each biopsy site, report the proportion of biopsies positive for carcinoma and the Gleason score, using the
system adopted in 2005 (50).
According to current international convention, the (modified) Gleason score of cancers detected in a
prostate biopsy consists of the Gleason grade of the dominant (most extensive) carcinoma component plus
the highest grade, irrespective of its extent (no 5% rule). When the carcinoma largely consists of grade 4/5
carcinoma, identification of a small portion (< 5% of the carcinoma) of Gleason grade 2 or 3 glands should be
ignored. A diagnosis of Gleason score 4 or lower should not be given on prostate biopsies (50). The presence
of intraductal carcinoma and extraprostatic extension should be reported. In addition to a report of the
carcinoma features for each biopsy site, provide an overall Gleason score based on findings in the individual
biopsies. The presence of perineural invasion is usually reported, even though there is conflicting evidence
about its usefulness as a prognostic indicator (51,52). The proportion (%) or length (mm) of tumour involvement
per biopsy site correlates with tumour volume, extraprostatic extension, and prognosis after prostatectomy
(52-54) and should therefore be recorded. The length of carcinoma (mm) and the percentage of carcinoma
involvement of the biopsy have equal prognostic impact (55).
The extent of a single, small focus of adenocarcinoma, which is located in only one of the biopsies,
should be clearly stated (e.g. < 1 mm or < 1%), as this might be an indication for further diagnostic work-up
before selecting therapy. In some studies, a finding of < 3 mm carcinoma in one biopsy with a Gleason score
5-6 has often been associated with insignificant cancer and with an increased risk of vanishing cancer (5658). A prostate biopsy that does not contain glandular prostate tissue could be reported as inadequate for
diagnostics, except on staging biopsies.
A recent study evaluated the concordance of pattern and change of prognostic groups for the
conventional and the modified Gleason grading (59). The evaluation was based on 172 prostatic needle
biopsies of patients who subsequently underwent RP. Four prognostic Gleason grading groups were
considered, divided into scores of 2-4, 5-6, 7, and 8-10. To check the discriminative power of the modified
Gleason grading, the time of biochemical progression-free outcome, according to prognostic groups, was
compared between standard and revised grading. The greatest impact of the International Society of Urological
Pathology consensus recommendations for Gleason grading was seen on the secondary pattern, which had
the lowest percentage of concordance and was reflected in a change toward higher Gleason prognostic
groups. Of 172 patients in whom the Gleason prognostic group was changed (to higher grades) based solely
on the consensus criteria, 46 (26.7%) had a higher pre-operative PSA level, more extensive tumours and
positive surgical margins, and a higher pathological stage. In this series, the revised Gleason grading identified
more patients in the aggressive prognostic group Gleason score 8-10, who had a significantly shorter time to
biochemical progression-free outcome after radical prostatectomy (log rank p = 0.011). These findings have
shown that the International Society of Urological Pathology’s recommendations are a valuable refinement of
the standard Gleason grading system.
6.6
Pathohistology of radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens
6.6.1 Processing of the RP specimen
The histopathological examination of RP specimens aims to provide information about the actual pathological
stage, grade, and surgical margin status of the prostate cancer. The weight and dimensions of the specimen
are recorded before embedding it for histological processing. It is generally recommended that RP specimens
are totally embedded to enable the best assessment of location, multifocality, and heterogeneity of the cancer.
However, for cost-efficiency purposes, partial embedding using a standard method may also be
considered, particularly for large-sized prostates (> 60 g). The most acceptable method includes the complete
embedding of the posterior (dorsal) part of the prostate in addition to a single mid-anterior left and right
section. Compared to total embedding, this method of partial embedding permitted detection of 98% of
prostate cancers with a Gleason score > 7 and accurate staging in 96% of cases (60).
Upon receipt in the histopathology lab, the entire RP specimen is inked in order to appreciate
the surgical margin status. The specimen is fixed in buffered formalin, preferably prior to incision of the
sample, as incision causes distortion of the tissue. Generally, appropriate fixation is achieved by immersing
the RP specimen in fixative for a few days. Fixation can be enhanced by injecting formalin using 21-gauge
syringes, which provides a more homogeneous fixation and sectioning after 24 hours (61). After fixation, the
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
17
apex is removed and cut with (para)sagittal or radial sections; the shave method is not recommended (62).
Separate removal and sagittal sectioning of the bladder neck is optional. The remainder of the RP specimen
is generally cut in transverse sections at 3-4 mm steps, perpendicularly to the posterior surface. The resulting
tissue slices can be embedded and processed either as whole-mounts or after quadrant sectioning. Wholemount processing provides better topographic visualisation of the carcinoma and a faster histopathological
examination. However, it is a more time-consuming and more expensive technique requiring specialised
equipment and personnel. Although whole-mount sectioning may be necessary for research, its advantages do
not outweigh its disadvantages for routine sectioning.
6.6.1.1 Recommendations for processing a prostatectomy specimen
Total embedding of a prostatectomy specimen is preferred, either by conventional (quadrant sectioning) or by
whole-mount sectioning.
The entire surface of RP specimens should be inked before cutting in order to evaluate the surgical margin
status.
The apex should be separately examined using the cone method with sagittal or radial sectioning.
6.6.2 RP specimen report
The pathology report provides essential information on the prognostic characteristics relevant for making
clinical decisions (Table 7). Because of the complex information provided on each RP specimen, the use of
a synoptic-(like) or checklist reporting is recommended (Table 8). Synoptic reporting of surgical specimens
results in more transparent and complete pathology reporting (63).
Table 7: Information provided by the pathology report
Typing (> 95% of PCa represent conventional (acinar) adenocarcinomas)
Grading according to the Gleason score
(Sub)staging and surgical margin status of the tumour
If appropriate, location and extent of extraprostatic extension, presence of bladder neck invasion, sidedness
of extraprostatic extension or seminal vesicle invasion, location and extent of positive surgical margins
Additional information may be provided on multifocality, diameter of the dominant tumour and the zonal
location (transition zone, peripheral zone, anterior horn) of the dominant tumour
Table 8: Example checklist – reporting of prostatectomy specimens
Histological type
Type of carcinoma, e.g. conventional acinar, ductal, etc.
Histological grade
Primary (predominant) grade
Secondary grade
Tertiary grade (if applicable)
Total/global Gleason score
Approximate percentage of Gleason grade 4 or 5 (optional)
Tumour quantitation (optional)
Percentage of prostatic gland involved
Tumour size of dominant nodule (if identified), greatest dimension in mm
Pathological staging (pTNM)
Presence of extraprostatic extension (focal or extensive)
• If present, specify site(s)
Presence of seminal vesicle invasion
If applicable, regional lymph nodes
• Location
• Number of lymph nodes retrieved
• Number of lymph nodes involved
Surgical margins
Presence of carcinoma at margin
• If present, specify site(s) and extra- or intraprostatic invasion
Other
18
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
If identified, presence of angioinvasion
Location (site, zone) of dominant tumour (optional)
Perineural invasion (optional)
• If present, specify extra-or intra-prostatic invasion
6.6.2.1 Gleason score
Grading of conventional prostatic adenocarcinomas using the (modified) Gleason score system (50) is the
single strongest prognostic factor for clinical behaviour and treatment response. The Gleason score is therefore
one of the parameters incorporated in nomograms that predict the risk of recurrence after prostatectomy (64).
6.6.2.2 Interpreting the Gleason score
The Gleason score is the sum of the most dominant and second most dominant (in terms of volume) Gleason
grade. If only one grade is present, the primary grade is doubled. If a grade comprises < 5% of the cancer
volume, this grade is not incorporated in the Gleason score (5% rule). Both the primary and the secondary
grade should be reported in addition to the Gleason score (e.g. Gleason score 7 [4 + 3]). A global Gleason
score is given when there are multiple tumours, but a separate tumour focus with a higher Gleason score
should also be mentioned. A tertiary Gleason grade 4 or 5, particularly if exceeding 5% of the prostate cancer
volume, is an unfavourable prognosticator for biochemical recurrence. The presence of the tertiary grade and
its approximate proportion of the cancer volume should also be reported (65), in addition to the Gleason score.
6.6.2.3 Definition of extraprostatic extension
The TNM staging system of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) is recommended for pathological
staging of carcinomas of the prostate (62,66). It measures the anatomical extension of the cancer, which may
(e.g. pT3 substaging) or may not (e.g. pT2 substaging) be prognostic.
Extraprostatic extension is the recommended term for the presence of tumour beyond the confines
of the prostate. Extraprostatic extension is defined as carcinoma admixed with periprostatic adipose tissue, or
bulging out beyond the contour of the prostate gland, e.g. at the neurovascular bundle or the anterior prostate.
Bladder neck invasion is also considered to be an extraprostatic extension.
It is useful to report not only the location, but also the extent of extraprostatic extension because
extension is related to the risk of recurrence (67,68). There are no well-established and internationally accepted
definitions of the terms ‘focal’ and ‘non-focal’ or ‘extensive extraprostatic extension’. Some authors describe
focal as ‘a few glands‘ (69) or extension less than 1 high power field (68), while others measure the depth of
extent in mm (70). Currently, it is considered clinically useful to measure the extent of extraprostatic extension
(e.g. less or more than 1 high power field or 1 mm).
At the apex of the prostate gland: there is no agreed definition on how to determine extraprostatic
extension at the site of the apex. Here, tumour admixed with skeletal muscle does not constitute extraprostatic
extension. It should be noted that at the apex, there is no diagnosis of stage pT4. In the bladder neck,
microscopic invasion of small fibres of smooth muscle is not equated to (gross) bladder wall invasion as it does
not carry independent prognostic significance for PSA recurrence (71,72) and should now be recorded as an
extraprostatic extension (pT3a). A positive margin at the bladder neck should be reported as an extraprostatic
extension (pT3a) with positive margin and not as pT4 disease. Some consider tumour invasion of the large
bundles of smooth muscle to be a gross invasion (73), as determined by the urologist.
6.6.3 Prostate cancer volume
The prognostic value of determining the volume of PCa in RP specimens is controversial, with several
conflicting studies either demonstrating or refuting its independent prognostic impact (68,74-77). Nevertheless,
a prostate cancer volume cut-off of 0.5 mL continues to be an important parameter to distinguish insignificant
from clinically relevant cancers (74). Furthermore, continued improvement in radio-imaging of the prostate
glands has allowed more accurate measurements of cancer volume before surgery. For these reasons, it may
be recommended that, if present, the greatest dimension of the dominant tumour nodule should be provided in
millimetres.
6.6.4 Surgical margin status
Surgical margin status is an independent risk factor for biochemical recurrence. It is usually possible to provide
clear information about the surgical margin status.
•
Margin status is positive if tumour cells are in touch with the ink on the surface of the specimen.
•
Margin status is negative if tumour cells are very close to the inked surface of the margin (75) or when
they are at the surface of the tissue lacking any ink.
If the tissue has severe crush artifacts (usually at the apex), it may not be possible to assign a surgical
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
19
margin status (78). Surgical margin status is independent of the pathological stage and a positive margin is
not evidence of extraprostatic extension (79). There is insufficient evidence to prove a relationship between
the extent of positive margin and the risk of recurrence (68). However, some indication must be given of the
(multi-)focality and extent of margin positivity, such as the linear extent in millimetres, or number of blocks with
positive margin involvement.
6.6.5 Other factors
According to the College of American Pathologists consensus statement (80), additional potential biomarkers
have not been sufficiently studied to demonstrate their additional prognostic value and clinical usefulness
outside the standard patient care setting (category III), including perineural invasion, neuroendocrine
differentiation, microvessel density, nuclear roundness, chromatin texture, other karyometric factors,
proliferation markers, prostate-specific antigen derivatives, and other factors (oncogenes, tumour suppressor
genes, apoptosis genes, etc).
6.7
References
1.
Richie JP, Catalona WJ, Ahmann FR, et al. Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer
with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Urology 1993 Oct:42(4):365-74.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7692657
Carvalhal GF, Smith DS, Mager DE, et al. Digital rectal examination for detecting prostate cancer at
prostate specific antigen levels of 4 ng/ml or less. J Urol 1999 Mar;161:835-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10022696
Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, et al. Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma
of the prostate. N Engl J Med 1987 Oct;317(15):909-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2442609
Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, et al. Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum
prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial
of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994 May;151(5):1283-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7512659
Semjonow A, Brandt B, Oberpenning F, et al. Discordance of assay methods creates pitfalls for the
interpretation of prostate-specific antigen values. Prostate Suppl 1996;7:3-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8950358
Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a
prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004 May 27;350(22):2239-46.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15163773
Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal J, et al. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to
clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993 Feb;71(3 Suppl):933-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7679045
Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to
enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter
clinical trial. JAMA 1998 May 20;279(19):1542-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9605898
Stephan C, Lein M, Jung K, et al. The influence of prostate volume on the ratio of free to total prostate
specific antigen in serum of patients with prostate carcinoma and benign prostate hyperplasia. Cancer
1997 Jan;79(1):104-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8988733
Carter HB, Pearson JD, Metter EJ, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of prostate-specific antigen levels in
men with and without prostate disease. JAMA 1992 Apr 22-29;267(16):2215-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1372942
Schmid H-P, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Observations on the doubling time of prostate cancer. The use
of serial prostate-specific antigen in patients with untreated disease as a measure of increasing cancer
volume. Cancer 1993 Mar 15;71(6):2031-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7680277
Arlen PM, Bianco F, Dahut WL, et al; Prostate Specific Antigen Working Group. Prostate Specific
Antigen Working Group guidelines on prostate specific antigen doubling time. J Urol 2008
Jun;179(6):2181-5; discussion 2185-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18423743
Heidenreich A. Identification of high-risk prostate cancer: role of prostate-specific antigen, PSA
doubling time, and PSA velocity. Eur Urol 2008 Nov;54(5):976-7; discussion 978-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18640768
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
20
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
14.
15.
16. 17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Ramirez ML, Nelson EC, Devere White RW, et al. Current applications for prostate-specific antigen
doubling time. Eur Urol 2008 Aug;54(2):291-300.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18439749
O’Brien MF, Cronin AM, Fearn PA, et al. Pretreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) velocity and
doubling time are associated with outcome but neither improves prediction of outcome beyond
pretreatment PSA alone in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2009 Aug 1;
27(22):3591-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19506163
Vickers AJ, Savage C, O’Brien MF, et al. Systematic review of pretreatment prostate-specific antigen
velocity and doubling time as predictors for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009 Jan 20;27(3):398-403.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19064972
Deras IL, Aubin SM, Blase A, et al. PCA3: a molecular urine assay for predicting prostate biopsy
outcome. J Urol 2008 Apr;179(4):1587-92.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18295257
Hessels D, Klein Gunnewiek JMT, van Oort I, et al. DD3 (PCA3)-based molecular urine analysis for the
diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003 Jul;44:8-15; discussion 15-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12814669
Nakanishi H, Groskopf J, Fritsche HA, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay correlates with prostate
cancer tumor volume: implication in selecting candidates for active surveillance. J Urol 2008
May;179(5):1804-9; discussion 1809-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18353398
Hessels D, van Gils MP, van Hooij O, et al Predictive value of PCA3 in urinary sediments in
determining clinico-pathological characteristics of prostate cancer. Prostate 2010 Jan 1;70(1):10-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19708043
Shappell SB. Clinical utility of prostate carcinoma molecular diagnostic tests. Rev Urol 2008
Winter;10(1):44-69.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18470278
Tomlins SA, Bjartell A, Chinnaiyan AM, et al. ETS gene fusions in prostate cancer: from discovery to
daily clinical practice. Eur Urol 2009 Aug;56(2):275-86.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19409690
Lee F, Torp-Pedersen ST, Siders DB, et al. Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of
prostate cancer. Radiology 1989 Mar;170(3 Pt 1):609-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2644656
Eastham JA, Riedel E, Scardino PT, et al; Polyp Prevention Trial Study Group. Variation of serum
prostate-specific antigen levels: an evaluation of year-to-year fluctuations. JAMA 2003 May
28:289(20):2695-700.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12771116
Stephan C, Klaas M, Muller C, et al. Interchangeability of measurements of total and free prostatespecific antigen in serum with 5 frequently used assay combinations: an update. Clin Chem 2006
Jan;52(1):59-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16391327
Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, et al. Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy:
prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy.
Urology 2008 Feb;71(2):191-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18308081
Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficiency
between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic
Diseases 2008 June;11:134-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17533394
Epstein JI, Herawi M. Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical
foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 2006 Mar:175(3 Pt 1):820-834.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469560
Moore CK, Karikehalli S, Nazeer T, et al. Prognostic significance of high grade prostatic intraepithelial
neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation in the contemporary era. J Urol 2005 Jan:173(1):70-2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15592031
Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D, et al. Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a
significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 2009 Aug;182(2):485-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524976
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
21
31.
32.
33.
34.
35. 36. 37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
22
Lemaitre L, Puech P, Poncelet E, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of anterior prostate cancer:
morphometric assessment and correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Radiol 2009
Feb;19(2):470-80.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18758786
Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK, et al. High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy
after previous negative biopsy series. Eur Urol 2006 Sep:50(3):498-505.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16631303
Moran BJ, Braccioforte MH, Conterato DJ. Re-biopsy of the prostate using a stereotactic
transperineal technique. J Urol 2006 Oct:176(4 Pt 1):1376-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16952636
Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation
of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 2006 May;175(5):1605-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16600713
Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, et al; ProtecT Study Group. Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment
(ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 2003:7(14):1-88.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12709289
Zigeuner R, Schips L, Lipsky K, et al. Detection of prostate cancer by TURP or open surgery in
patients with previously negative transrectal prostate biopsies. Urology 2003 Nov:62(5):883-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14624913
Linzer DG, Stock RG, Stone NN, et al. Seminal vesicle biopsy: accuracy and implications for staging
of prostate cancer. Urology 1996 Nov:48(5):757-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8911521
Pelzer AE, Bektic J, Berger AP, et al. Are transition zone biopsies still necessary to improve prostate
cancer detection? Results from the Tyrol screening project. Eur Urol 2005 Dec:48(6):916-21;
discussion 921.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16126324
Aron M, Rajeev TP, Gupta NP. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal needle biopsy of the prostate: a
randomized controlled study. BJU Int 2000 Apr:85(6):682-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759665
von Knobloch R, Weber J, Varga Z, et al. Bilateral fine-needle administered local anaesthetic nerve
block for pain control during TRUS-guided multi-core prostate biopsy: a prospective randomised trial.
Eur Urol 2002 May;41(5):508-14; discussion 514.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12074792
Adamakis I, Mitropoulos D, Haritopoulos K, et al. Pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided
prostate biopsy: a randomized prospective trial comparing periprostatic infiltration with lidocaine with
the intrarectal instillation of lidocaine-prilocain cream. World J Urol 2004 Oct;22(4):281-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14689224
NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in OncologyTM Prostate Cancer Early Detection, V.2.2010.
Page 15.
www.nccn.org
Giannarini G, Mogorovich A, Valent F, et al. Continuing or discontinuing low-dose aspirin before
transrectal prostate biopsy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Urol 2007 Sep;70(3):501-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17688919
Iczkowski KA, Casella G, Seppala RJ, et al. Needle core length in sextant biopsy influences prostate
cancer detection rate. Urology 2002 May;59(5):698-703.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11992843
Van der Kwast TH, Lopes C, Santonja C, et al; Members of the pathology committee of the European
Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. Guidelines for processing and reporting of
prostatic needle biopsies. J Clin Pathol 2003 May;56(5):336-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12719451
Rogatsch H, Moser P, Volgger H, et al. Diagnostic effect of an improved preembedding method of
prostate needle biopsy specimens. Hum Pathol 2000 Sep;31(9):1102-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014578
Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Valenstein PA. Diagnostic uncertainty expressed in prostate needle biopsies.
A College of American Pathologists Q-probes Study of 15,753 prostate needle biopsies in 332
institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999 Aug;123(8):687-92.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10420224
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Iczkowski KA. Current prostate biopsy interpretation: criteria for cancer, atypical small acinar
proliferation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and use of immunostains. Arch Pathol Lab
Med 2006 Jun;130(6):835-43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16740037
Reyes AO, Humphrey PA. Diagnostic effect of complete histologic sampling of prostate needle biopsy
specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1998 Apr;109(4):416-22.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9535395
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al; ISUP grading committee. The 2005 International Society
of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am
J Surg Pathol 2005 Sep;29:1228-42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16096414
De la Taille A, Katz A, Bagiella E, et al. Perineural invasion on prostate needle biopsy: an independent
predictor of final pathologic stage. Urology 1999 Dec;54(6):1039-43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10604705
Sebo TJ, Cheville JC, Riehle DL, et al. Predicting prostate carcinoma volume and stage at radical
prostatectomy by assessing needle biopsy specimens for percent surface area and cores positive for
carcinoma, perineural invasion, Gleason score, DNA ploidy and proliferation, and preoperative serum
prostate specific antigen: a report of 454 cases. Cancer 2001 Jun;91(11):2196-204.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11391602
Grossklaus DJ, Coffey CS, Shappell SB, et al. Percent of cancer in the biopsy set predicts
pathological findings after prostatectomy. J Urol 2002 May;167(5):2032-5; discussion 2005.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11956432
Freedland SJ, Terris MK, Csathy GS, et al; Search Database Study Group. Preoperative model for
predicting prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy using percent of biopsy
tissue with cancer, biopsy Gleason grade and serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2004 Jun;
171(6 Pt 1):2215-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126788
Brimo F, Vollmer RT, Corcos J, et al. Prognostic value of various morphometric measurements of
tumour extent in prostate needle core tissue. Histopathology 2008 Aug;53(2):177-83.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18752501
Herkommer K, Kuefer R, Gschwend JE, et al. Pathological T0 prostate cancer without neoadjuvant
therapy: clinical presentation and follow-up. Eur Urol 2004 Jan;45(1):36-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14667513
Postma R, de Vries SH, Roobol MJ, et al. Incidence and follow-up of patients with focal prostate
carcinoma in 2 screening rounds after an interval of 4 years. Cancer 2005 Feb 15;103(4):708-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15648082
Trpkov K, Gao Y, Hay R, et al. No residual cancer on radical prostatectomy after positive 10-core
biopsy: incidence, biopsy findings, and DNA specimen identity analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006
Jun;130(6):811-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16740032
Billis A, Guimaraes MS, Freitas LL, et al. The impact of the 2005 international society of urological
pathology consensus conference on standard Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma in needle
biopsies. J Urol 2008;180(2):548-52; discussion 552-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18550106
Sehdev AE, Pan CC, Epstein JI. Comparative analysis of sampling methods for grossing radical
prostatectomy specimens performed for nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostatic adenocarcinoma. Hum
Pathol 2001 May;32(5):494-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11381367
Ruijter ET, Miller GJ, Aalders TW, et al. Rapid microwave-stimulated fixation of entire prostatectomy
specimens. Biomed-II MPC Study Group. J Pathol 1997 Nov;183(3):369-75.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9422995
Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, et al; ISUP grading committee. The 2005 International Society
of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am
J Surg Pathol 2005 Sep;29(9):1228-42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16096414
Chan NG, Duggal A, Weir MM, et al. Pathological reporting of colorectal cancer specimens: a
retrospective survey in an academic Canadian pathology department. Can J Surg 2008 Aug;51(4):
284-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18815652
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
23
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
24
Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al. Contemporary update of the prostate cancer staging
nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001 Dec;58(6):843-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11744442
Harnden P, Shelley MD, Coles B, et al. Should the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer be
modified to account for high-grade tertiary components? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lancet Oncology 2007 May;8(5):411-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17466898
Ohori M, Kattan M, Scardino PT, et al. Radical prostatectomy for carcinoma of the prostate. Mod
Pathol 2004 Mar;17(3):349-59.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14765206
Wheeler TM, Dillioglugil O, Kattan MW, et al. Clinical and pathological significance of the level and
extent of capsular invasion in clinical stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Hum Pathol 1998 Aug;29(8):856-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9712429
Marks M, Koch MO, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. The relationship between the extent of surgical margin
positivity and prostate specific antigen recurrence in radical prostatectomy specimens. Hum Pathol
2007 Aug;38(8):1207-11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17490720
Epstein JI, Carmichael MJ, Pizov G, et al. Influence of capsular penetration on progression following
radical prostatectomy: a study of 196 cases with long-term followup. J Urol 1993 Jul;150(1):135-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7685422
Sung MT, Lin H, Koch MO, et al. Radial distance of extraprostatic extension measured by ocular
micrometer is an independent predictor of prostate-specific antigen recurrence: A new proposal for
the substaging of pT3a prostate cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 2007 Feb;31(2):311-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17255778
Aydin H, Tsuzuki T, Hernandez D, et al. Positive proximal (bladder neck) margin at radical
prostatectomy confers greater risk of biochemical progression. Urology 2004 Sep;64(3):551-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351591
Ploussard G, Rotondo S, Salomon L. The prognostic significance of bladder neck invasion in prostate
cancer: is microscopic involvement truly a T4 disease? BJU Int 2009; Oct 26. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19863529
Hoedemaeker RF, Vis AN, Van Der Kwast TH. Staging prostate cancer. Microsc Res Tech 2000
Dec;51(5):423-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11074612
Stamey TA, Yemoto CM, McNeal JE, et al. Prostate cancer is highly predictable: a prognostic
equation based on all morphological variables in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2000
Apr;163(4):1155-60.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10737486
Epstein JI, Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, et al. Prognostic factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma
in radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 2005
May;216:34-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16019758
Kikuchi E, Scardino PT, Wheeler TM, et al. Is tumor volume an independent prognostic factor in
clinically localized prostate cancer? J Urol 2004 Aug;172(2):508-11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15247716
Van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Kok DE, et al. Maximum tumor diameter is not an independent prognostic
factor in high-risk localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2008 Jun;26(3):237-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18265988
Evans AJ, Henry PC, Van der Kwast TH, et al. Interobserver variability between expert urologic
pathologists for extraprostatic extension and surgical margin status in radical prostatectomy
specimens. Am J Surg Pathol 2008 Oct;32(10):1503-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18708939
Chuang AY, Epstein JI. Positive surgical margins in areas of capsular incision in otherwise organconfined disease at radical prostatectomy: histologic features and pitfalls. Am J Surg Pathol 2008
Aug;32(8):1201-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18580493
Bostwick DG, Grignon DJ, Hammond ME, et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of
American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000 Jul;124(7):995-1000.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10888774
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
7. STAGING
The primary extension assessment of prostate cancer (PCa) is usually made by digital rectal examination (DRE),
prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement, and bone scan, supplemented with computed tomography (CT)
or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and chest X-ray in specific situations.
7.1 T-staging
The first level is the assessment of local tumour stage, where the distinction between intracapsular (T1-T2) and
extracapsular (T3-T4) disease has the most profound impact on treatment decisions. DRE often underestimates
the tumour extension; a positive correlation between DRE and pathological tumour stage was found in fewer
than 50% of cases (1). However, more extensive examinations for adequate T-staging are only recommended
in selected cases when more precise staging directly affects the treatment decision, i.e. when curative
treatment is an option.
Serum PSA levels increase with advancing stage. Nevertheless, when PSA level is measured in an
individual patient, it appears to have a limited ability to predict the final pathological stage accurately. Due
to the production of PSA by benign and malignant prostatic tissue, there is no direct relationship between
serum PSA concentration and the clinical and pathological tumour stage (2-4). A combination of serum PSA
level, Gleason score on prostate biopsy and clinical T-stage, however, has been proven to be more useful in
predicting the final pathological stage than the individual parameters per se (5).
The ability of the molecular forms of PSA to predict T-stage is still controversial. Percentage-free
serum PSA did not appear to be able to predict organ-confined disease in the overall population: it could
significantly predict favourable pathology in a subset of patients where DRE is normal and total PSA ranges
from 4.1-10.0 ng/mL (6). Total PSA and PSA complexed to antichymotrypsin (PSA-ACT) may be superior to
their density derivatives in the prediction of post-surgical pathological stage, but it does not seem to justify the
substitution of PSA-ACT data in the Partin’s nomogram (7). Large multicentre studies are needed before any
form of PSA can be used as a single modality for staging.
The most commonly used method for viewing the prostate is transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). However,
only 60% of tumours are visible with TRUS, and the remainder are not recognised due to their echogenicity.
A combination of DRE and TRUS can detect T3a PCa more accurately than either method alone (8). TRUS is
not able to determine tumour extension with sufficient accuracy to be recommended for routine use in staging.
About 60% of pT3 tumours will not be detected pre-operatively by TRUS (9) (LE: 3).
Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) is a non-invasive method of reproducing whole volume images
of solid structures with a suggested staging accuracy of 91% (10). Several adjuncts to 3D greyscale TRUS
have been investigated. A greater sensitivity for cancer detection has been achieved with the addition of power
colour Doppler and contrast agents: the presence or absence of vessels crossing the capsule to determine an
extracapsular extension was considered a significant predictive sign (11,12). Unfortunately, recognition of these
findings is largely operator-dependent. Thus, differentiation between T2 and T3 tumours should not be based
on TRUS alone (13,14).
Furthermore, in a large multi-institutional study, TRUS was no more accurate at predicting organconfined disease than was DRE (15). These findings were supported by another large study, which showed that
there was no meaningful superiority of TRUS over DRE (16).
Seminal vesicle invasion is predictive of local relapse and distant failure. Seminal vesicle biopsies
may be used to increase the accuracy of pre-operative staging (17). This is not recommended as a first-line
examination, but should be reserved for patients with a substantial risk of seminal vesicle invasion in whom a
positive seminal vesicle biopsy would modify treatment decisions. Patients with a clinical stage greater than
T2a and a serum PSA level of more than 10 ng/mL could be candidates for seminal vesicle biopsies (18,19).
Patients with any of the basal biopsies positive for cancer are more likely to have positive seminal
vesicle biopsies (20). The biopsy Gleason score, serum PSA level and clinical stage are known to be
independent predictors of adverse pathological features after radical prostatectomy (RP).
Of the prostate needle biopsy parameters examined, the percentage of tissue with cancer was the
strongest predictor for positive surgical margins, seminal vesicle invasion and non-organ-confined disease (21).
An increased number of biopsies involved with tumour independently predicts extracapsular extension, margin
involvement and lymph node invasion (22).
In a multivariate analysis, the best risk predictors of extracapsular extension on one side were the
overall average of positive biopsy cores being 15% or greater, and the average from three ipsilateral biopsies
being 15% or greater. When used in combination, these two factors yielded a model with a positive predictive
value of 37%, and a negative predictive value of 95%. The high negative predictive value of the side-specific
model identifies patients who are good candidates for nerve-sparing surgery (23). Furthermore, it may be useful
to correlate the bioptic Gleason score with the final pathological stage: about 70% of patients have localised
disease when the biopsy Gleason score is < 6 (24).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
25
Both CT and MRI are now of a high technical standard, but neither modality is sufficiently reliable
to make their use mandatory in the assessment of local tumour invasion (25-27). Endorectal MRI (e-MRI)
may allow for more accurate local staging by complementing the existing clinical variables by improvements
in spatial characterisation of the prostatic zonal anatomy and molecular changes (28). Image quality and
localisation improves significantly with e-MRI compared with external coil MRI (29). When compared with DRE
and TRUS prostate biopsy findings, e-MRI contributes significant incremental value for local PCa staging (30),
particularly in the pre-operative identification of extracapsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle invasion
(SVI) when interpreted by dedicated genitourinary radiologists (31,32,33).
E-MRI could impact on the decision to preserve or resect the neurovascular bundle (NVB) at the time
of radical surgery (34). Similarly, e-MRI could be accurate in evaluating the presence of SVI (31). Features
associated with the identification of SVI include low signal intensity within the seminal vesicle, and lack of
preservation of normal seminal vesicle architecture. Combining these features with the presence both of
tumour at the base of the prostate and ECE is highly predictive for the presence of SVI (31,35).
When assessed for the ability to predict organ-confined PCa, the contribution of e-MRI to staging
nomograms was significant in all risk categories, but the greatest benefit was seen in the intermediate and high
risk groups (36). The combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and T2-weighted MR imaging yields
improved assessment of ECE and better results for PCa staging compared with either technique independently
(37) (LE: 3).
MR spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) allows for the assessment of tumour metabolism by displaying
the relative concentrations of citrate, choline, creatinine and polyamines. Differences in the concentrations of
these chemical metabolites between normal and malignant prostate tissues allow for better tumour localisation
within the peripheral zone, increasing the accuracy of ECE detection among less-experienced readers,
and decreasing interobserver variability (38). Furthermore, correlations have been demonstrated between
the metabolic signal pattern and a pathological Gleason score, suggesting the potential for a non-invasive
assessment of PCa aggressiveness (39).
Despite the proposed accuracy and benefit of e-MRI and MRSI in PCa characterisation and
localisation, e-MRI has several limitations that hamper its widespread application in PCa staging, e.g.
difficulties in interpreting signal changes related to post-biopsy haemorrhage and inflammatory changes of
the prostate, and the unquantifiable but significant inter- and intra-observer variability seen between both
non-dedicated and dedicated radiologists that may lead to under- or overestimation of tumour presence and
the local extent of disease (LE: 3). The overall accuracy of 11C-choline positron emission tomography (PET) in
defining local tumour stage (pT2 and pT3a-4) has been reported to be around 70%. PET tends to understage
PCa, and has a limited value for making treatment decisions in patients with clinically localised PCa, especially
if a nerve-sparing procedure is being considered (40) (LE: 2b).
7.2 N-staging
N-staging should be performed only when the findings will directly influence a treatment decision. This is
usually the case in patients for whom potentially curative treatments are planned. High PSA values, stages
T2b-T3 disease, poor tumour differentiation and peri-neural tumour invasion have been associated with a
higher risk of the presence of nodal metastases (5,41,42). The measurement of PSA level alone is unhelpful in
predicting the presence of lymph node metastases for an individual patient.
The nomograms could be used to define a group of patients with a low risk of nodal metastasis (<
10%, see reference number 43). In such cases, patients with a serum PSA level of less than 20 ng/mL, stage
T2a or less, and a Gleason score of 6 or less may be spared N-staging procedures before potentially curative
treatment (5).
The extent of the Gleason 4 pattern in sextant biopsies has also been used to define the risk of N1
disease. If any core had a predominant Gleason 4 pattern, or > three cores any Gleason 4 pattern, the risk of
nodal metastases was found to be 20-45%. For the remaining patients, the risk was 2.5%, supporting the idea
that nodal staging is unnecessary in selected patients (44).
In the current published literature, the results indicate that CT and MRI perform similarly in the
detection of pelvic lymph node metastases, although CT seems to be slightly superior (45) (LE: 2a). In either
case, the decision about whether nodal involvement is present rests solely on whether there is enlargement of
the investigated lymph nodes. The centimetre threshold used to decide whether a lymph node is pathologically
involved varies between 0.5 cm and 2 cm. A threshold of 1 cm in the short axis for the oval nodes, and 0.8 cm
for the round nodes, has been recommended as the criteria for the diagnosis of lymph node metastases (46).
A fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) might provide a decisive answer in cases of positive imaging
results. However, the lymph node can be difficult to reach because of the anatomical position. In addition,
FNAB is not a highly sensitive staging procedure, and a false-negative rate of 40% has been reported (46).
High-resolution MRI with lymphotrophic ultra-small super-paramagnetic iron oxide particles (USPIO)
was more recently suggested in the detection of small and otherwise occult lymph node metastases in
26
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
patients with PCa (47,48). These iron nanoparticles are taken up by circulating macrophages, which travel to
normal nodal tissue. The presence of the nanoparticles causes normal nodal tissue to turn black, and because
malignant nodal tissue is unable to take up the agent, metastases will have a signal intensity higher than normal
nodes, even in those that do not meet the standard size criteria for metastasis (49).
In asymptomatic patients with newly diagnosed PCa and a serum PSA level of less than 20 ng/mL, the
likelihood of positive findings on CT or MRI is approximately 1% (37). CT scanning may therefore be warranted
in patients with a very high risk of harbouring lymph node metastases, as the specificity of a positive scan is
high (93-96%). Patients with nodal metastases on CT can thus be spared operative lymphadenectomy (50).
Radio-immunoscintigraphy and PET have been investigated in order to improve the diagnosis of
metastatic disease to the lymph nodes. Both methods are still under investigation, and further evaluation is
needed before they can be recommended for routine use in clinical practice, especially as negative results
should be interpreted with caution (51). The results obtained using 18F-choline PET/CT scans for initial
N-staging were discouraging, especially in terms of inability to detect small metastases/micrometastases
(< 5 mm) (52). Furthermore, 11C-choline PET/CT has quite a low sensitivity for the detection of lymph node
metastases, but performed better than clinical nomograms, with equal sensitivity and better specificity (53).
The gold standard for N-staging is operative lymphadenectomy, either by open or laparoscopic
techniques. It is worth pointing out that recent studies with more extensive lymphadenectomy have shown that
the obturator fossa is not always the primary site for metastatic deposits in the lymph nodes, and pelvic lymph
node dissection that is limited to the obturator fossa will therefore miss about 50% of lymph node metastases
(54,55). When deciding on pelvic lymph node dissection, extended lymphadenectomy should be considered,
despite its disadvantages: it requires surgical experience; it is time-consuming; and it often leads to more
complications than the limited procedures. Furthermore, it may fail to identify lymph node metastases, however
present, even outside the region of extended dissection (56).
The primary removal of the so-called sentinel lymph node (SLN), defined as the first lymph node that
receives lymphatic drainage from PCa, has the main aim of reducing the eventual morbidity associated with an
extended pelvic node dissection, while preserving maximal sensitivity for diagnosis of metastatic disease (57)
(LE: 3) (see section 9.7 ‘Treatment: radical prostatectomy, indication and extent of eLND’).
7.3 M-staging
The axial skeleton is involved in 85% of patients who die from PCa (58). The presence and extent of bone
metastases accurately reflect the prognosis for an individual patient. Elevated skeletal alkaline phosphatase
levels may indicate the presence of bony metastasis in 70% of affected patients (59). Furthermore, the
measurement of skeletal alkaline phosphatase and PSA at the same time increases clinical effectiveness
to approximately 98% (60). In a prospective study, multiple regression analysis showed the extent of bone
disease to be the only variable influencing the serum levels of skeletal alkaline phosphatase and PSA. However,
in contrast to serum PSA, skeletal alkaline phosphatase demonstrated a statistical correlation with the extent of
bone disease (61).
Early detection of bone metastases will alert the clinician to the possible complications inherent in
skeletal destruction. Bone scintigraphy remains the most sensitive method of assessing bone metastases,
being superior to clinical evaluation, bone radiographs, serum alkaline phosphatase measurement and
prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) determination (62,63). Technetium diphosphonates are the optimum
radiopharmaceuticals currently available because of their extremely high bone-to-soft tissue ratio (64). A semiquantitative grading system based on the extent of disease observed on the bone scan was found to correlate
with survival (65).
Increased 18F-fluoride uptake in malignant bone lesions reflects the increase in regional blood flow
and bone turnover that characterise these lesions.
Studies have shown that 18F-fluoride PET/CT is a highly sensitive and specific imaging modality for
detection of bone metastases (66,67). However, no definitive results have been obtained and therefore no final
recommendations can be made (68).
Besides bone, PCa may metastasise to any organ, but most commonly it affects distant lymph nodes,
lung, liver, brain and skin. Clinical examination, chest X-ray, ultrasound, CT and MRI scans are appropriate
methods of investigation, but only if symptoms suggest the possibility of soft-tissue metastasis.
The need for reliable serum markers to improve the pre-treatment staging of patients with PCa has
long been recognised. At present, PSA is the marker of choice. A pre-treatment serum PSA level greater than
100 ng/mL has been found to be the single most important indicator of metastatic disease, with a positive
predictive value of 100% (69). Furthermore, it has helped to reduce the number of patients with newly
diagnosed PCa who require a bone scan. Patients with a low serum PSA concentration have only rarely been
found to harbour detectable skeletal metastases. The correlation between serum PSA and bone scintigraphy
in patients with newly diagnosed untreated PCa has been further investigated (70-74). Results suggest that a
staging bone scan may be superfluous if the serum PSA concentration is less than 20 ng/mL in asymptomatic
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
27
patients with well or moderately differentiated tumours. In contrast, in patients with poorly differentiated
tumours and locally advanced disease, a staging bone scan should be obtained irrespective of the serum PSA
value (75,76).
7.4 Guidelines for the diagnosis and staging of PCa
Diagnosis of PCa
GR
1.
An abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) result or elevated serum PSA measurement could
indicate PCa. The exact cut-off level of what is considered to be a normal PSA value has yet to be
determined, but values of approximately < 2-3 ng/mL are often used for younger men.
C
2.
The diagnosis of PCa depends on histopathological (or cytological) confirmation.
B
Biopsy and further staging investigations are only indicated if they affect the management of the
patient.
C
Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systemic biopsy is the recommended method in most cases
of suspected PCa. A minimum of 10 systemic, laterally directed, cores are recommended, with
perhaps more cores in larger volume prostates.
B
3.
Transition zone biopsies are not recommended in the first set of biopsies due to low detection rates. C
4.
One set of repeat biopsies is warranted in cases with persistent indication for PCa (abnormal DRE,
elevated PSA or histopathological findings suggestive of malignancy at the initial biopsy).
B
Overall recommendations for further (three or more) sets of biopsies cannot be made; the decision
must be made based on an individual patient.
C
Transrectal peri-prostatic injection with a local anaesthetic can be offered to patients as effective
analgesia when undergoing prostate biopsies.
A
Staging of PCa
1.
2.
C
Local staging (T-staging) of PCa is based on findings from DRE and possibly magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI). Further information is provided by the number and sites of positive prostate biopsies,
the tumour grade and the level of serum PSA.
Despite its high specificity in the evaluation of extra-capsular extension (ECE) and seminal vesicle
invasion or involvement (SVI), TRUS is limited by poor contrast resolution, resulting in low sensitivity
and a tendency to understage PCa. Even with the advent of colour- and power Doppler to assist
in identifying tumour vascularity, the accuracy of TRUS in local staging remains inadequate. In
comparison with DRE, TRUS and computed tomography (CT), MRI demonstrates higher accuracy
for the assessment of uni- or bi-lobar disease (T2), ECE and SVI (T3), as well as the invasion of
adjacent structures (T4). However, the literature shows a wide range in the accuracy of T-staging
by MRI, from 50-92%. The addition of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) can be helpful
in equivocal cases. The addition of magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) to MRI also
increases accuracy and decreases inter-observer variability in the evaluation of ECE.
C
Lymph node status (N-staging) is only important when potentially curative treatment is planned.
Patients with stage T2 or less, PSA < 20 ng/mL and a Gleason score < 6 have a lower than 10%
likelihood of having node metastases and can be spared nodal evaluation.
B
Given the significant limitations of pre-operative imaging in the detection of small metastases (< 5
mm), pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) remains the only reliable staging method in clinically
localised PCa.
3.
Currently, it seems that only methods of histological detection of lymph node metastases with high
sensitivity, such as sentinel lymph node dissection or extended PLND, are suitable for lymph node
staging in PCa.
C
Skeletal metastasis (M-staging) is best assessed by bone scan. This may not be indicated in
asymptomatic patients if the serum PSA level is < 20 ng/mL in the presence of well or moderately
differentiated tumours.
B
In equivocal cases, 11C-choline-, 18F-flouride-PET/CT or whole body MRI could be of value in
individual patients.
C
CT = computed tomography; DCE-MRI = dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI; DRE = digital rectal examination;
ECE = extracapsular extension; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; MRSI = magnetic resonance spectroscopic
imaging; PCa = prostate cancer; PET = positron emission tomography; PLND = pelvic lymph-node dissection;
PSA = prostate-specific antigen; SVI = seminal vesicle invasion; TRUS = transrectal ultrasound.
28
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
7.5 References
1. Spigelman SS, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, et al. Rectal examination in volume determination of carcinoma
of the prostate: clinical and anatomical correlations. J Urol 1986 Dec;136(6):1228-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3773095
Hudson MA, Bahnson RR, Catalona WJ. Clinical use of prostate-specific antigen in patients with
prostate cancer. J Urol 1989 Oct;142(4):1011-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2477559
Lange PH, Ercole CJ, Lightner DJ, et al. The value of serum prostate specific antigen determinations
before and after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1989 Apr;141(4):873-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2467013
Partin AW, Carter HB, Chan DW, et al. Prostate specific antigen in the staging of localized prostate
cancer: influence of tumour differentiation, tumour volume and benign hyperplasia. J Urol 1990
Apr;143(4):747-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1690309
Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al. Contemporary update of the prostate cancer staging
nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001 Dec;58(6):843-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11744442
Morote J, Encabo G, de Torres IM. Use of percent free prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of the
pathological features of clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2000 Aug;38(2):225-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10895016
Custovic Z, Kraus O, Tomaskovic I, et al. Serum tPSA, cPSA, related density parameters and
chromogranin A as predictors of positive margins after radical prostatectomy. Anticancer Res 2007
Jul-Aug;27(4C):2817-21.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17695453
Hsu CY, Joniau S, Oyen R, et al. Detection of clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer – by digital rectal
examination or transrectal ultrasonography? BJU Int 2006 Nov;98(5):982-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16945120
Enlund A, Pedersen K, Boeryd B, et al. Transrectal ultrasonography compared to histopathological
assessment for local staging of prostatic carcinoma. Acta Radiol 1990 Nov;31(6):597-600.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2278785
Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Pallwein L, et al. The value of three-dimensional transrectal
ultrasonography in staging prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007 Jul;100(1):47-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17433033
Sauvain JL, Palascak P, Bourscheid D, et al. Value of power Doppler and 3D vascular sonography
as a method for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003 Jul;44(1):21-30; discussion
30-1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12814671
Zalesky M, Urban M, Smerhovský Z, et al. Value of power Doppler sonography with 3D reconstruction
in preoperative diagnostics of extraprostatic tumor extension in clinically localized prostate cancer. Int
J Urol 2008;15(1):68-75; discussion 75.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18184177
Oyen RH. Imaging modalities in diagnosis and staging of carcinoma of the prostate. In: Brady
LW, Heilmann HP, Petrovich Z, Baert L, Brady LW, Skinner DG (eds). Carcinoma of the Prostate.
Innovations & Management, 1996, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 65-96.
Rorvik J, Halvorsen OJ, Servoll E, et al. Transrectal ultrasonography to assess local extent of prostatic
cancer before radical prostatectomy. Br J Urol 1994 Jan;73(1):65-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8298901
Smith JA Jr, Scardino PT, Resnick MI, et al. Transrectal ultrasound versus digital rectal examination
for the staging of carcinoma of the prostate: results of a prospective multi-institutional trial. J Urol
1997 Mar;157(3):902-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9072596
Liebross RH, Pollack A, Lankford SP, et al. Transrectal ultrasound for staging prostate carcinoma prior
to radiation therapy: an evaluation based on disease outcome. Cancer 1999 Apr;85(7):1577-85.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10193949
Saliken JC, Gray RR, Donnelly BJ, et al. Extraprostatic biopsy improves the staging of localized
prostate cancer. Can Assoc Radiol J 2000 Apr;51(2):114-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10786920
Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P. Indications for seminal vesicle biopsy and laparoscopic pelvic lymph
node dissection in men with localized carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1995 Oct;154(4):1392-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7658545
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
9.
10. 11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. UPDATE JANUARY 2011
29
19. 20. 21. 22.
23.
24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.
31. 32. 33. 34.
35. 30
Allepuz Losa CA, Sans Velez JI, Gil Sanz MJ, et al. Seminal vesicle biopsy in prostate cancer staging.
J Urol 1995 Oct;154(4):1407-11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7544842
Guillonneau B, Debras B, Veillon B, et al. Indications for preoperative seminal vesicle biopsies in
staging of clinically localized prostatic cancer. Eur Urol 1997;32(2):160-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9286646
Freedland SJ, Csathy GS, Dorey F, et al. Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more
predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate
specific antigen or Gleason score. J Urol 2002 Feb;167(2 PT 1):516-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11792909
Quinn DI, Henshall SM, Brenner PC, et al. Prognostic significance of preoperative factors in localized
prostate carcinoma treated with radical prostatectomy: importance of percentage of biopsies that
contain tumor and the presence of biopsy perineural invasion. Cancer 2003 Apr;97(8):1884-93.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12673714
Elliott SP, Shinohara K, Logan SL, et al. Sextant prostate biopsies predict side and sextant site of
extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J Urol 2002 Jul;168(1):105-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12050501
Narayan P, Gajendran V, Taylor SP, et al. The role of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy-based
staging, preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score in prediction of final
pathological diagnosis in prostate cancer. Urology 1995 Aug;46(2):205-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7542823
Lee N, Newhouse JH, Olsson CA, Benson MC, et al. Which patients with newly diagnosed prostate
cancer need a computed tomography scan of the abdomen and pelvis? An analysis based on 588
patients. Urology 1999 Sep;54(3):490-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10475360
May F, Treumann T, Dettmar P, et al. Limited value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging
and transrectal ultrasonography in the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2001
Jan;87(1):66-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11121995
Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR, et al. Prostate cancer staging: should MR imaging be used?
A decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000 May;215(2):445-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796923
Masterson TA, Touijer K. The role of endorectal coil MRI in preoperative staging and decision-making
for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. MAGMA 2008 Nov;21(6):371-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18751745
Heijmink SW, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil
MR imaging at 3 T – comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. Radiology
2007;244(1):184-95.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17495178
Mullerad M, Hricak H, Kuroiwa K, et al. Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging,
guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of
prostate cancer. J Urol 2005 Dec;174(6): 2158-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16280755
Sala E, Akin O, Moskowitz CS, et al. Endorectal MR imaging in the evaluation of seminal vesicle
invasion: diagnostic accuracy and multivariate feature analysis. Radiology 2006;238(3):929-37.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16424250
Mullerad M, Hricak H, Wang L, et al. Prostate cancer: detection of extracapsular extension by
genitourinary and general body radiologists at MRI imaging. Radiology 2004;232(1):140-6.
http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/232/1/140
Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen HN, et al. Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MRI findings for
prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology 2004;232(1):133-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15166321
Hricak H, Wang L, Wei DC, et al. The role of preoperative endorectal MRI in the decision regarding
whether to preserve or resect neurovascular bundles during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Cancer
2004 Jun;100(12):2655-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15197809
Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, et al. Prediction of seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer:
incremental value of adding endorectal MRI to the Kattan Nomogram. Radiology 2007;242(1):182-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17090712
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, et al. Prediction of organ confined prostate cancer: incremental value
of MRI and MRI sprectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology 2006;238(2):597-603.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16344335
Fuchsjager M, Shukla-Dave A, Akin O, et al. Prostate cancer imaging. Acta Radiol 2008;49:107-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18210320
Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al. Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton
MR spectroscopic imaging – clinicopathologic study. Radiology 1999;213(2):473-80.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10551229
Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with
Gleason score based on step section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology
2005;234(3):804-14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15734935
Rinnab L, Blumstein NM, Mottaghy FM, et al. 11C-choline positron-emission tomography/computed
tomography and transrectal ultrasonography for staging localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007
Jun;99(6):1421-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17355373
Stone NN, Stock RG, Parikh D, et al. Perineural invasion and seminal vesicle involvement predict
pelvic lymph node metastasis in men with localized carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1998
Nov;160(5):1722-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9783940
Pisansky TM, Zincke H, Suman VJ, et al. Correlation of pretherapy prostate cancer characteristics
with histologic findings from pelvic lymphadenectomy specimens. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1996
Jan;34(1):33-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12118563
Cagiannos I, Karakiewicz P, Eastham JA, et al. A preoperative nomogram identifying decreased risk of
positive pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer. J Urol 2003 Nov;170(5):1798-803.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14532779
Haese A, Epstein JI, Huland H, et al. Validation of a biopsy-based pathologic algorithm for predicting
lymph node metastases in patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2002
Sep;95(5):1016-21.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12209685
Hoivels AM, Heesakkers RAM, Adang EM, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the
staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clinical Radiology
2008;63:387-95.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18325358
Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, et al. Pelvic adenopathy in prostatic and urinary bladder
carcinoma: MR-imaging with a three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetization-prepared-rapid
gradient-echo sequence. Am J Roentgenol 1996 Dec;167(6):1503-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8956585
Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node
metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003 Jun;348(25):2491-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12815134
Heesakkers RA, Fütterer JJ, Hövels AM, et al. Prostate cancer evaluated with ferumoxtran-10enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T: early experience. Radiology 2006 May;
239(2):481-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16641354
Bellin MF, Roy C, Kinkel K, et al. Lymph node metastases: safety and effectiveness of MR imaging
with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide particles – initial clinical experience. Radiology 1998
Jun;207(3):799-808.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9609907
Wolf JS Jr, Cher M, Dall’era M, et al. The use and accuracy of cross-sectional imaging and fine needle
aspiration cytology for detection of pelvic lymph node metastases before radical prostatectomy. J Urol
1995 Mar;153(3Pt2):993-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7853590
Salminen E, Hogg A, Binns D, et al. Investigations with FDG-PET scanning in prostate cancer show
limited value for clinical practice. Acta Oncol 2002;41(5):425-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442917
Husarik DB, Miralbell R, Dubs M, et al. Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging of
prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008 Feb;35(2):253-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17926036
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
31
53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 32
Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P, et al. (11)C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized
tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer:
comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol 2008 Aug;54(2):392-401.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18456393
Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing
radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 2002 Apr;167(4):1681-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11912387
Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, et al. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging
procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 2002 Aug;168(2):514-18, discussion 518.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12131300
Weckermann D, Dorn R, Holl G, et al. Limitations of radioguided surgery in high-risk prostate cancer.
Eur Urol 2007 Jun;51(6):1549-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16996201
Weckermann D, Dorn R, Trefz M, et al. Sentinel lymph node dissection for prostate cancer: experience
with more than 1,000 patients. J Urol 2007 Mar;177(3):916-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17296375
Whitmore WF Jr. Natural history and staging of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am 1984 May;11(2):
205-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6375067
Wolff JM, Ittel TH, Borchers H, et al. Metastatic workup of patients with prostate cancer employing
alkaline phosphatase and skeletal alkaline phosphatase. Anticancer Res 1999 Jul-Aug;19(4A):2653-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10470213
Lorente JA, Morote J, Raventos C, et al. Clinical efficacy of bone alkaline phosphatase and prostate
specific antigen in the diagnosis of bone metastasis in prostate cancer. J Urol 1996 Apr;155(4):
1348-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8632571
Lorente JA, Valenzuela H, Morote J, et al. Serum bone alkaline phosphatase levels enhance the
clinical utility of prostate specific antigen in the staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients.
Eur J Nucl Med 1999 Jun;26(6):625-32.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10369948
McGregor B, Tulloch AG, Quinlan MF, et al. The role of bone scanning in the assessment of prostatic
carcinoma. Br J Urol 1978 May;50(3):178-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/753456
O’Donoghue EP, Constable AR, Sherwood T, et al. Bone scanning and plasma phosphatases in
carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 1978 May;50(3):172-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/753455
Buell U, Kleinhans E, Zorn-Bopp E, et al. A comparison of bone imaging with Tc-99m DPD and
Tc-99m MDP: concise communication. J Nucl Med 1982 Mar;23(3):214-17.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6460854
Soloway MS, Hardemann SW, Hickey D, et al. Stratification of patients with metastatic prostate
cancer based on the extent of disease on initial bone scan. Cancer 1988 Jan;61(1):195-202.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3334948
Even-Sapir E, Metser U, Mishani E, et al. The detection of bone metastases in patients with highrisk prostate cancer: 99mTc-MDP Planar bone scintigraphy, single- and multifield-of-view SPECT,
18F-fluoride PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006 Feb;47(2):287-97.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16455635
Beheshti M, Vali R, Langsteger W. [18F]Fluorocholine PET/CT in the assessment of bone metastases in
prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007 Aug;34(8):1316-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17476505
Bouchelouche K, Oehr P. Recent developments in urologic oncology: positron emission tomography
molecular imaging. Curr Opin Oncol 2008 May;20(3):321-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18391633
Rana A, Karamanis K, Lucas MG, et al. Identification of metastatic disease by T category, Gleason
score and serum PSA level in patients with carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 1992 Mar;69(3):
277-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1373666
Chybowski FM, Keller JJ, Bergstrahl EJ, et al. Predicting radionuclide bone scan findings in patients
with newly diagnosed, untreated prostate cancer: prostate specific antigen is superior to all other
parameters. J Urol 1991 Feb;145(2):313-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1703240
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
71. 72.
73.
74. 75. 76.
Kemp PM, Maguire GA, Bird NJ. Which patients with prostatic carcinoma require a staging bone
scan? Br J Urol 1997 Apr;79(4):611-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9126094
Lee N, Fawaaz R, Olsson CA, et al. Which patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer need
a radionuclide bone scan? An analysis based on 631 patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000
Dec;48(5):1443-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11121646
O’Donoghue JM, Rogers E, Grimes H, et al. A reappraisal of serial isotope bone scans in prostate
cancer. Br J Radiol 1993 Aug;66(788):672-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7536607
Wolff JM, Bares R, Jung PK, et al. Prostate-specific antigen as a marker of bone metastasis in
patients with prostate cancer. Urol Int 1996;56(3):169-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8860738
Wolff JM, Zimny M, Borchers H, et al. Is prostate-specific antigen a reliable marker of bone metastasis
in patients with newly diagnosed cancer of the prostate? Eur Urol 1998;33(4):376-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9612680
Bruwer G, Heyns CF, Allen FJ. Influence of local tumour stage and grade on reliability of serum
prostate-specific antigen in predicting skeletal metastases in patients with adenocarcinoma of the
prostate. Eur Urol 1999;35(3):223-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10072624
8. TREATMENT: DEFERRED TREATMENT
(WATCHFUL WAITING/ACTIVE MONITORING)
8.1
Introduction
The therapeutic management of prostate cancer (PCa), even in clinically localised disease, has become
increasingly complex due to the various therapeutic options available, which have equal oncological efficacy
but significantly different, treatment-related, side-effects.
Treatment decisions for each clinical stage and risk group of PCa should be based on national or European
guidelines, with the guideline used for the decision-making process clearly indicated. Furthermore, a
multidisciplinary approach may be advisable from the beginning in patients with high-risk PCa because it is
very likely that adjuvant treatment will be necessary for locally advanced disease. It is therefore advisable to:
•
Counsel patients with clinically localised or intermediate-risk PCa in an interdisciplinary setting with
a urologist and a radiation oncologist, considering the therapeutic options of nerve-sparing radical
prostatectomy (RP), permanent low-dose brachytherapy, external beam radiation therapy and active
surveillance (AS).
•
Discuss neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment options in patients with high-risk PCa in a pretherapeutic multidisciplinary tumour board to recommend the most appropriate treatment option,
considering all pathohistological, functional and individual parameters of a given PCa.
•
Thoroughly document which guidelines have been used for the decision-making process if no
multidisciplinary approach was possible.
8.1.1 Definition
There is a great difference between the incidence of and mortality from PCa: in the USA in 2007, there were
218,900 new cases with only 27,050 deaths (1). Several autopsy studies of people dying from different causes
have shown that while 60-70% of older men have histological PCa (2,3), a large proportion of these tumours
will not progress. Prostate cancer is diagnosed in only 15-20% of men during their lifetime, with a 3% lifetime
risk of death (4).
The incidence of small, localised, well-differentiated PCa is increasing, mainly as a result of prostatespecific antigen (PSA) screening and ‘multi-core’ schemes of prostate biopsy. These data suggest that a lot
of the men with localised PCa would not, in fact, benefit from a definitive treatment. With the aim of reducing
the risk of overtreatment in this subgroup of patients, two conservative management strategies of ‘watchful
waiting’ and ‘active surveillance’ have been proposed.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
33
8.1.1.1 Watchful waiting (WW)
Also known as ‘deferred treatment’ or ‘symptom-guided treatment’, this term was coined in the pre-PSA
screening era (before 1990) and referred to the conservative management of PCa until the development of local
or systemic progression, at which point the patient would be treated palliatively with transurethral resection of
the prostate (TURP) or other procedures for urinary tract obstruction and hormonal therapy or radiotherapy for
the palliation of metastatic lesions.
8.1.1.2 Active surveillance (AS)
Also known as ‘active monitoring’, this is the new term for the conservative management of PCa. Introduced in
the past decade, it includes an active decision not to treat the patient immediately and to follow him with close
surveillance and treat at pre-defined thresholds that classify progression (i.e. short PSA doubling time and
deteriorating histopathological factors on repeat biopsy). In these cases, the treatment options are intended to
be curative.
8.2
Deferred treatment of localised PCa (stage T1-T2, Nx-N0, M0)
8.2.1 Watchful waiting (WW)
The rationale behind WW is the observation that PCa often progresses slowly, and is diagnosed in older men in
whom there is a high incidence of co-morbidity and related high competitive mortality (5). Watchful waiting can
be considered as an option for treating patients with localised PCa and a limited life expectancy or for older
patients with less aggressive cancers.
There have been several attempts to summarise the key papers dealing with deferred treatment in
patients with presumed localised PCa (6-10). Most of them present the same results as they analyse roughly
the same series, but with a somewhat different methodology.
The outcome studies on WW usually include patients whose PSA readings are not always available, and in
whom the lesions are predominantly palpable and which would currently be defined as intermediate-risk
tumours, as described by D’Amico et al. (11). These studies include patients with a follow-up of up to 25 years,
for whom the endpoints are overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS).
Several WW series show a very consistent DSS ratio at 10 years, ranging from 82-87% (6,12-17). In
three studies with data beyond 15 years, the DSS was 80%, 79% and 58%, respectively (14,16,17). Two of
them reported a 20-year DSS of 57% and 32%, respectively (14,16).
Chodak and co-workers reported a pooled analysis of the original data from 828 patients treated
by WW (6). The paper is based on patients from six non-randomised studies (10,18-23). The results describe
cancer-specific survival (CSS) and metastasis-free survival after 5 and 10 years of follow-up (6) (LE: 2b).
Tumour grade is clearly significant, with very low survival rates for grade 3 tumours. Although the
10-year CSS rate is equally good (87%) for grade 1 and 2 tumours, the latter have a significantly higher
progression rate, with 42% of these patients developing metastases (Table 9).
Table 9: O
utcome of deferred treatment in localised PCa in relation to tumour grade (6): percentage of
patients (95% confidence interval) surviving at 5 and 10 years
Grade
Disease-specific survival
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Metastasis-free survival
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
5 years (%)
10 years (%)
98 (96-99)
97 (93-98)
67 (51-79)
87 (81-91)
87 (80-92)
34 (19-50)
93 (90-95)
84 (79-89)
51 (36-64)
81 (75-86)
58 (49-66)
26 (13-41)
The importance of tumour grade on survival after conservative management of PCa was also underlined in a
large register study utilising the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database of the National
Cancer Institute in the USA (12) (LE: 3). Patients with grade 1, 2 and 3 tumours had 10-year CSS rates of 92%,
76% and 43%, respectively, correlating with the data from the pooled analysis.
The paper by Chodak and co-workers also specifically described the outcome for stage T1a patients
(6), with cancer-specific 10-year survival rates of 96% and 94%, respectively, for grade 1 and 2 tumours.
The metastasis-free survival rate was 92% for patients with grade 1 tumours, but 78% for those with grade
2 tumours, indicating a higher risk of progression in individuals with moderately differentiated tumours. This
difference in progression rate correlates with other studies on stage T1a disease (24,25).
In order to stage patients accurately and not overlook the presence of more extensive and/or more
34
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
poorly differentiated tumours, repeat examinations with PSA measurement, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)
and needle biopsy of the prostate remnant have been advocated, especially in younger males with a long life
expectancy (26).
The impact of grade on the risk of tumour progression and ultimately death from PCa is also
described in a paper by Albertsen and co-workers (27). They re-evaluated all biopsy specimens using the more
widely accepted Gleason score, and showed that the risk of PCa death was very high in Gleason 7-10 tumours,
intermediate in Gleason 6 tumours, but low in Gleason 2-5 cancers (Table 10) (28,29) (LE: 3).
This paper also showed that Gleason 6-10 tumours carry a continuously increasing risk of ending the
patient’s life for up to 15 years of follow-up after conservative management. The CSS curves for this group
of patients have been published in a recent discussion article on different methods of assessing outcome in
treatment for localised PCa (28).
Table 10: T
he 15-year risk of dying from PCa in relation to Gleason score at diagnosis in patients with
localised disease aged 55-74 years (27,28)
Gleason score
Risk of cancer death* (%)
Cancer-specific mortality† (%)
2-4
4-7
8
5
6-11
14
6
18-30
44
7
42-70
76
8-10
60-87
93
* The figures on the risk of cancer death differ for different age groups and represent the true risk in the studied
population (taking actual competing mortality from other causes into consideration).
† The cancer-specific mortality compensates for differences in competing mortality and indicates the outcome if
the patient actually lived for 15 years.
Three randomised clinical trials have reported long-term follow-up of patients randomised to WW or
RP: the first was in the pre-PSA screening era (29); the second was at the beginning of PSA screening (30); and
the third was a recent study, the results from which are not yet mature (1).
Between 1967 and 1975, the Veterans Administration Cooperative Urological Research Group
randomised 142 patients affected by clinical localised PCa. The study was underpowered to detect treatment
differences (31).
Between 1989 and 1999, the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4)
randomised 695 patients with clinical stage T1-T2 to WW (348) or RP (347) (Table 11) (30). This study began
after PSA screening was introduced into clinical practice, but only 5% of men were diagnosed by screening.
After a median follow-up of 10.8 years, this study showed a significant decrease in cancer-specific mortality,
overall mortality, metastatic risk progression and local progression in patients treated with RP versus WW (LE:
1b).
Table 11: O
utcome of Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) at 10 years of
follow-up (median of 8.2 years) (30)
Disease-specific mortality
Overall mortality
Metastatic progression
Local progression
RP (n 347)
% (n)
9.6 (30)
27 (83)
15.2 (50)
19.2 (64)
WW (n 348)
% (n)
14.9 (50)
32 (106)
35.4 (79)
44.3 (149)
Relative risk
(95% CI)
0.56 (0.36-0.88)
0.74 (0.56-0.86)
0.60 (0.42-0.44)
0.33 (0.25-0.44)
p value
0.01
0.04
0.004
< 0.001
The results of three more years of follow-up were published recently. At 12 years’ follow-up, the group of
patients treated with RP presented a favourably significant difference of 5.4% in PCa-specific mortality and
6.7% in non-metastatic progression (Table 12) (32) (LE: 1b).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
35
Table 12: O
utcome of Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) at 12 years of
follow-up (median of 10.8 years) (32)
Disease-specific mortality
Metastatic progression
RP (n 347)
% (n)
12.5 (43)
19.3
WW (n 348)
% (n)
17.9 (68)
26
Relative risk
(95% CI)
0.65 (0.2-11.1)
0.65 (0.47-0.88)
p value
0.03
0.006
The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407
(PIVOT) (1) is an ongoing controlled multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing RP with WW in patients
with clinical stage T1-T2 disease. Between 1994 and 2002, 731 patients with a median age of 67 years were
enrolled. The median PSA was 7.8 ng/mL (mean 10.2 ng/mL). Three-quarters of the men had clinical stage
T1c disease. Using previously developed tumour risk categorizations, incorporating PSA levels, Gleason
histological grade and tumour stage, approximately 43% of men had low-risk, 36% had medium-risk, and 20%
had high-risk PCa. Follow-up is planned for 15 years, and the primary endpoint is the overall mortality. PIVOT
enrolees are more representative of men being diagnosed and treated in contemporary clinical practice than
were those enrolled in SPCG-4.
In summary:
linical stage T1c currently represents 40-50% of new cases of PCa (33). The incidence of small, localised,
C
well-differentiated PCa is increasing, mainly as a result of PSA screening and ‘multi-core’ schemes of
prostate biopsy.
The SPCG-4 study demonstrated significant advantages for RP over WW, but only 5% of those studied were
PSA-screened patients.
During the past 20 years, there has apparently been a shift towards higher Gleason scoring levels (34), even in
cases evaluating microscopic foci of PCa. Some tumours previously given a Gleason score of 6 (3 + 3), might
be scored as 7 (3 + 4), or more, today.
The lead time in PSA screening is about 10 years (35,36). It is therefore possible that the cancer mortality
from untreated, non-screen-detected PCa in patients with contemporary Gleason scores of 6 might be as low
as 10% at 20-year follow-up (37).
It would seem that many small, localised, well-differentiated PCas will not progress, and radical therapy may
lead to substantial overtreatment with consequent problems in terms of quality of life and socio-economic
costs.
8.2.2 Active surveillance
Active surveillance was conceived with the aim of reducing the ratio of overtreatment in patients with clinically
confined low-risk PCa, without giving up radical treatment, as happened with the WW strategy. Only data from
non-mature randomised clinical trials of AS with follow-up < 10 years are currently available.
A multicentre clinical trial of AS versus immediate treatment was opened in the USA in 2006. Its
results are expected in 2025.
Choo, Klotz and co-workers were the first to report on a prospective AS protocol (38,39). They
enrolled 331 patients with clinical stage T1c or T2a, PSA < 10 ng/mL and a Gleason score < 6 (PSA < 15 and
Gleason score < 7 [3 + 4] in patients above the age of 70 years). At a median follow-up of 8 years, the overall
survival was 85%, while disease-specific survival and metastasis-free survival were 99%. The median value of
the PSA doubling time was 7 years; in 42% of patients it was > 10 years, and in 22% < 3 years. Thirty-three per
cent of the patients subsequently underwent a radical treatment: 20% for a PSA doubling time < 3 years; 5%
for Gleason score progression on repeat biopsies; and 10% because of patient preference.
Soloway et al., evaluating 157 patients with a median follow-up of 4 years, reported no PCa deaths or
metastatic disease and a ratio of only 8% having delayed treatment (40). Carter et al., looking at 407 patients
with a median follow-up of 3.4 years, reported no PCa deaths (41).
A variety of additional studies have been performed on active surveillance in clinically organ confined
disease (Table 13). All these studies confirm that, in well-selected patients with low-risk disease, there is a very
low rate of progression and cancer-specific death, and only a few patients require delayed radical intervention.
However, another 5-7 more years of follow-up will be necessary in order to obtain definitive results.
36
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
Table 13: Clinical trials of AS for organ-confined PCa
Author
n
Follow-up
(years)
Overall
survival
Klotz (2009) [42]
453
6.8 (1-13)
78.6%
Cancerspecific
survival
97.2%
Van den Bergh
(2008) [43]
616
3.9 (0-11)
91%
99.8%
Soloway (2008)
[40]
99
4 (1- 14.9)
No data
100%
Dall’Era (2008)
[44]
321
3.6 (1-17)
100%
100%
Berglund (2008)
[45]
104
3 (1-6)
No data
100%
Al Otaibi (2008)
[46]
186
6.4 (2.5-14)
No data
100%
Kakehi (2008)
[47]
134
4.5
2.5%
100%
Progression / Inclusion criteria
Intervention
PSA < 10
Gleason score < 6
32%
PSA < 10, PSA-density
< 0.2, cT1C/T2, Gleason
intervention;
only 14% due score < 6,
to progressive < 2 biopsies positive
PCA
9%
< 80 years, Gleason score
< 6, PSA < 0,15 ng/mL,
cT < 2,
< 50% cancer in
< 2 biopsies
24%
PSA < 10 ng/mL, Gleason
score < 6, no Gleason
grade > 3, < 33% positive
biopsies, cT 1-2a
27%
PSA < 10, cT1-2a,
Gleason grade < 3, < 3
positive biopsies, < 50%
cancer in biopsy
< cT2a, < 2 positive
36%
biopsies, < 50% cancer
in biopsy, no Gleason
grade 4
17.7%
cT1cN0M0, 50-80
years, PSA < 20ng/mL,
< 2 positive out of 6-12
biopsies Gleason score
< 6, < 50% cancer
30%
Different series have identified several eligibility criteria for enrollers:
•
clinically confined PCa (T1-T2);
•
Gleason score < 7;
•
PSA < 15-20 ng/mL (5).
Moreover, different criteria were applied to define cancer progression (5), although all groups used:
•
PSA doubling time with a cut-off value ranging between < 2 and < 4 years;
•
Gleason score progression to > 7 at re-biopsy, at intervals ranging from 1-4 years.
These indicators are poorly validated. Currently, it is impossible to make evidence-based recommendations on
when to intervene in patients with a long life expectancy.
Data that include PSA and PSA changes over time are relatively sparse in the literature. In a recent
review article, it was pointed out that patients with a PSA of < 3 ng/mL had no mortality from PCa within the
first 10 years, and that PSA changes over time were relatively unreliable in determining the risk for tumour
progression (48).
The data above indicate a high risk of tumour progression after conservative treatment for some
patients with apparently localised PCa. This has been supported by the results of other studies in which
patients with a life expectancy exceeding 10 years have been shown to have a higher mortality rate from PCa
when left without curative treatment (49-51). Long-term follow-up of the Johansson series shows the same
outcome: there is a higher risk of dying from PCa in patients surviving more than 15 years with well- and
moderately differentiated tumours at diagnosis (52) (LE: 3).
For patients who choose deferred treatment, the risk of delaying hormone therapy until disease
progression has occurred appears to be modest, although shorter CSS times have been reported after
deferred therapy compared with immediate hormone therapy in presumed localised PCa (not utilising PSA for
staging) after 15 years of follow-up (53).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
37
In contradiction of Lundgren et al. (53), the report of the Casodex Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’
Group programme showed a higher mortality in a group of men with localised PCa treated with bicalutamide
150 mg than in those who received placebo (54).
In summary, it seems that hormonal therapy should be withheld until there is definitive proof of
disease activity (progression), but it is open to speculation whether there might be some benefit in delivering it
before the patient develops metastatic disease (55) (see below).
8.3
Deferred treatment for locally advanced PCa (stage T3-T4, Nx-N0, M0)
The literature reporting on deferred treatment for locally advanced PCa is sparse. There are no randomised
studies that compare more aggressive treatments, such as radiotherapy or surgery, with or without hormones.
Most patients whose disease progresses after deferred treatment of locally advanced PCa will be
candidates for hormone therapy. There are reports from non-randomised studies showing that hormone
treatment may safely be delayed until metastatic progression occurs, as no survival advantage was noted
between patients treated with immediate orchiectomy compared with delayed treatment (56,57).
In a recent prospective randomised clinical phase III trial (EORTC 30981), 985 patients with T0-4 N0-2
M0 PCa were randomly assigned to immediate androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) or received ADT
only on symptomatic disease progression or occurrence of serious complications (58,59). After a median
follow-up of 7.8 years, the overall survival hazard ratio was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.48;
non-inferiority p > 0.1) favouring immediate treatment, seemingly due to fewer deaths of non-prostatic cancer
causes (p = 0.06).
The time from randomisation to progression of hormone-refractory disease did not differ significantly,
nor did prostate cancer-specific survival. The median time to the start of deferred treatment after study entry
was 7 years. In this group, 126 patients (25.6%) died without ever needing treatment (44% of the deaths in
this arm). The conclusion drawn from this study is that immediate ADT resulted in a modest but statistically
significant increase in overall survival but no significant difference in PCa mortality or symptom-free survival.
Furthermore, the authors identified significant risk factors associated with a significantly worse outcome:
in both arms, patients with a baseline PSA > 50 ng/mL were at a > 3.5-fold higher risk of dying of PCa than
patients with a baseline PSA < to 8 ng/mL. If the baseline PSA was between 8 ng/mL and 50 ng/ mL, the risk
of PCa death was approximately 7.5-fold higher in patients with a PSA doubling time < 12 months than in
patients with a PSA doubling time > 12 months. The time to PSA relapse following a response to immediate
ADT correlated significantly with baseline PSA, suggesting that baseline PSA may also reflect disease
aggressiveness.
However, when early and delayed treatments were compared in a large randomised trial carried out by
the Medical Research Council (MRC), a survival benefit for immediate hormone therapy was demonstrated (60),
comparable with the results of the Lundgren et al. study mentioned above (53) (LE: 1b).
Also, a comparison of bicalutamide, 150 mg/day, with placebo showed that progression-free survival
(PFS) was better with early treatment in patients with locally advanced PCa (54) (LE: 1b).
Fifty selected asymptomatic patients (mean age 71 years) with highly or moderately differentiated
stage T3 M0 PCa were followed up for 169 months (61). The 5- and 10-year CSS rates were 90% and
74%, respectively, and the likelihood of being without treatment at 5 and 10 years was 40% and 30%,
respectively. The authors concluded that WW might be a treatment option for selected patients with non-poorly
differentiated T3 tumours and a life expectancy of less than 10 years (LE: 3).
8.4
Deferred treatment for metastatic PCa (stage M1)
There are only very sparse data on this subject. The only candidates for such treatment should be
asymptomatic patients with a strong wish to avoid treatment-related side-effects (LE: 4). As the median survival
time is about 2 years, the time without any treatment (before symptoms occur) is very short in most cases.
The MRC trial highlighted the risk of developing symptoms (pathological fractures, spinal cord compression),
and even death from PCa, without receiving the possible benefit from hormone treatment (60,62) (LE:1b). If a
deferred treatment policy is chosen for a patient with advanced PCa, close follow-up must be possible.
38
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
8.5
Summary of deferred treatment
8.5.1 Indications
LE
In presumed localised PCa (Nx-N0, M0):
Stage T1a: well and moderately differentiated tumours. In younger patients with a life expectancy of
> 10 years, re-evaluation with PSA, TRUS and biopsies of the prostatic remnant is recommended
2a
Stage T1b-T2b: well and moderately differentiated tumours. In asymptomatic patients with a life
expectancy of < 10 years
2a
Inclusion criteria for active surveillance with the lowest risk of cancer progression are: PSA < 10 ng/
ml, biopsy Gleason score < 6, < 2 positive biopsies, < 50% cancer per biopsy, cT1c-2a.
8.5.2 Options
In presumed localised PCa (Nx-N0, M0):
Stage T1b-T2b patients who are well informed and have well-differentiated (or Gleason 2-4) PCa and
a life expectancy of 10-15 years.
All patients not willing to accept side-effects of active treatment.
Well-informed, asymptomatic patients with high PSA levels for whom cure is unlikely
3
In locally advanced disease (stage T3-T4):
Asymptomatic patients with well- or moderately differentiated cancer, PCa and a short life
expectancy
3
PSA < 50 ng/mL and PSA doubling time > 12 months
1
In metastatic disease (M1):
A very rare patient without any symptoms and the possibility of close follow-up
4
8.6
References
1.
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Barry MJ, et al. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/
NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies Program #407 (PIVOT): design and baseline results of a randomized
controlled trial comparing radical prostatectomy to watchful waiting for men with clinically localized
prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 2009 Jan;30(1):81-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18783735
Rullis I, Schaeffer JA, Lilien OM. Incidence of prostatic carcinoma in the elderly. Urology 1975
Sep;6(3):295-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1172317
Sakr WA, Grignon DJ, Crissman JD, et al. High grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and
prostatic adenocarcinoma between the ages of 20-69: an autopsy study of 249 cases. In Vivo 1994
May-Jun;8(3):439-43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7803731
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56(2):106-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16514137
Adolfsson J. Watchful waiting and active surveillance: the current position. BJU Int 2008 Jul;102(1):
10-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18422774
Chodak GW, Thisted RA, Gerber GS, et al. Results of conservative management of clinically localized
prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1994 Jan;330(4):242-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8272085
Middleton RG, Thompson IM, Austenfeld MS, et al. Prostate Cancer Clinical Guidelines Panel
Summary report on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. The American Urological
Association. J Urol 1995 Dec;154(6):2144-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500479
Thompson IM. Observation alone in the management of localized prostate cancer: the natural history
of untreated disease. Urology 1994 Feb;43(2 Suppl):41-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8116132
Schellhammer PF. Contemporary expectant therapy series: a viewpoint. Urology Symposium
1994;44(6A):47-52.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
39
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
40
Adolfsson J, Steineck G, Whitmore WF Jr. Recent results of management of palpable clinically
localized prostate cancer. Cancer 1993 Jul;72(2):310-22.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8319164
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy,
external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.
JAMA 1998 Sep;280(11):969-74.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9749478
Lu-Yao GL, Yao SL. Population-based study of long-term survival in patients with clinically localised
prostate cancer. Lancet 1997 Mar;349(9056):906-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9093251
Sandblom G, Dufmats M, Varenhorst E. Long-term survival in a Swedish population-based cohort of
men with prostate cancer. Urology 2000 Sep;56(3):442-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10962312
Johansson JE, Adami HO, Andersson SO, et al. Natural history of localized prostatic cancer. A
population-based study in 223 untreated patients. Lancet 1989 Apr;1(8642):799-803.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2564901
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. for the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study
No. 4. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005
May;352(19):1977-84.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888698
Adolfsson J, Tribukait B, Levitt S. The 20-yr outcome in patients with well- or moderately differentiated
clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed in the pre-PSA era: the prognostic value of tumour
ploidy and comorbidity. Eur Urol 2007 Oct;52(4):1028-35.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17467883
Jonsson E, Sigbjarnarson HP, Tomasson J, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the prostate in Iceland: a
population-based study of stage, Gleason grade, treatment and long-term survival in males diagnosed
between 1983 and 1987. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2006;40(4):265-71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16916765
Moskovitz B, Nitecki A, Richter Levin D. Cancer of the prostate: is there a need for aggressive
treatment? Urol Int 1987;42(1):49-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3590404
Goodman CM, Busuttil A, Chisholm GD. Age, and size and grade of tumour predict prognosis in
incidentally diagnosed carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 1988 Dec;62(6):576-80.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3219513
Jones GW. Prospective, conservative management of localized prostate cancer. Cancer 1992 Jul;70(1
Suppl):307-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1600492
Whitmore WF Jr, Warner JA, Thompson IM Jr. Expectant management of localized prostatic cancer.
Cancer 1991 Feb;67(4):1091-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1991257
Adolfsson J, Carstensen J, Löwhagen T. Deferred treatment in clinically localised prostatic carcinoma.
Br J Urol 1992 Feb;69(2):183-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1537031
Johansson JE, Adami HO, Andersson SO, et al. High 10-year survival rate in patients with early,
untreated prostatic cancer. JAMA 1992 Apr;267(16):2191-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556796
Lowe BA. Management of stage T1a Prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 1996 Aug;14(3):178-82.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8865481
Loughlin KR, Renshaw AA, Kumar S. Expectant management of stage A-1 (T1a) prostate cancer
utilizing serum PSA levels: a preliminary report. J Surg Oncol 1999 Jan;70(1):49-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9989421
Griebling TL, Williams RD. Staging of incidentally detected prostate cancer: role of repeat resection,
prostate-specific antigen, needle biopsy, and imaging. Semin Urol Oncol 1996 Aug;14(3):156-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8865478
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, et al. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74
years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998
Sep;280(11):975-80.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9749479
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Albertsen P, Hanley JA, Murphy-Setzko M. Statistical considerations when assessing outcomes
following treatment for prostate cancer. J Urol 1999 Aug;162(2):439-44.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10411053
Iversen P, Johansson JE, Lodding P, et al. Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group. Bicalutamide (150
mg) versus placebo as immediate therapy alone or as adjuvant to therapy with curative intent for early
nonmetastatic prostate cancer: 5.3-year median followup from the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer
Group Study Number 6. J Urol 2004 Nov;172(5Pt1):1871-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15540741
Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al. Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group Study Number 4.
A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer.
N Engl J Med 2002 Sep;347(11):781-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12226148
Iversen P, Madsen PO, Corle DK. Radical prostatectomy versus expectant treatment for early
carcinoma of the prostate. Twenty-three year follow-up of a prospective randomized study. Scand J
Urol Nephrol Suppl 1995;172:65-72.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8578259
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filén F, et al; Scandinavian prostate cancer Group Study Number 4.
Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate
cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100(16):1144-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695132
Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: trials and tribulations. World J Urol 2008
Sep;26(5):437-42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18813934
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Barrows GH, et al. Prostate cancer and the Will Rogers phenomenon. J Natl
Cancer Inst 2005 Sep;97(17):1248-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16145045
Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, et al. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen
screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for prostate cancer. J Natl
Cancer Inst 2003 Jun;95(12):868-78.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12813170
Törnblom M, Eriksson H, Franzén S, et al. Lead time associated with screening for prostate cancer.
Int J Cancer 2004 Jan;108(1):122-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14618626
Klotz L. Active surveillance for favorable-risk prostate cancer: who, how and why? Nat Clin Pract
Oncol 2007;4(12):692-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18037873
Choo R, Klotz L, Danjoux C, et al. Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate
grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen,
histological and/or clinical progression. J Urol 2002 Apr;167(4):1664-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11912384
Choo R, DeBoer G, Klotz L, et al. PSA doubling time of prostate carcinoma managed with watchful
observation alone. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001 Jul;50(3):615-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11395227
Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, et al. Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative
for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 2008 Jan;101(2):165-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17850361
Carter HB, Kettermann A, Warlick C, et al. Expectant management of prostate cancer with curative
intent: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Urol 2007 Dec;178(6):2359-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17936806
Klotz L, Nam R, Lam A, et al. Clinical results of long term follow-up of a large active surveillance
cohort. J Urol 2009 Suppl;184(4):abstract #606.
van den Bergh RC, Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, et al. Outcomes of men with screen-detected prostate
cancer eligible for active surveillance who were managed expectantly. Eur Urol 2009 Jan;55(1):1-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18805628
Dall’Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al. Active surveillance for the management of prostate cancer
in a contemporary cohort. Cancer 2008 Jun 15;112(12):2664-70.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18433013
Berglund RK, Masterson TA, Vora KC, et al. Pathological upgrading and up staging with immediate
repeat biopsy in patients eligible for AS. J Urol 2008 Nov;180(5):1964-7; discussion 1967-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801515
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
41
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
42
Al Otaibi M, Ross P, Fahmy N, et al. Role of repeated biopsy of the prostate in predicting disease
progression in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Cancer 2008 Jul 15;113(2):286-92.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18484590
Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiaishi T, et al. Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for as in Japanese
patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008 Feb;38(2):122-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18272471
Schmid HP, Adolfsson J, Aus G. Active monitoring (deferred treatment or watchful waiting) in the
treatment of prostate cancer. A review. Eur Urol 2001 Nov;40(5):488-94.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11752854
Aus G, Hugosson J, Norlén L. Long-term survival and mortality in prostate cancer treated with
noncurative intent. J Urol 1995 Aug;154(2 PT 1):460-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7541864
Hugosson J, Aus G, Bergdahl C, et al. Prostate cancer mortality in patients surviving more than 10
years after diagnosis. J Urol 1995 Dec;154(6):2115-17.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500471
Brasso K, Friis S, Juel K, et al. Mortality of patients with clinically localized prostate cancer treated
with observation for 10 years or longer: a population based study. J Urol 1999 Feb;161(2):524-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9915440
Johansson JE, Andrén O, Andersson SO, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer.
JAMA 2004 Jun;291(22):2713-19.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15187052
Lundgren R, Nordle O, Josefsson K. Immediate estrogen or estramustine phosphate therapy versus
deferred endocrine treatment in nonmetastatic prostate cancer: a randomized multicentre study with
15 years of followup. The South Sweden Prostate Cancer Study Group. J Urol 1995 May;153(5):
1580-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7714978
Wirth MP, See WA, McLeod DG, et al; Casodex Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group. Bicalutamide
150 mg in addition to standard care in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer:
results from the second analysis of the early prostate cancer program at median followup of 5.4 years.
J Urol 2004 Nov;172(5Pt1):1865-70.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15540740
Weissbach L, Schäfer C, Heidenreich A. [A paradigm shift. Defensive strategies for the treatment of
localized prostate cancer in the new S3 guideline.] Der Urologe A 2010 Feb;49(2):199-205. [Article in
German]
http://www.springerlink.com/content/255p21452x1l5156/
Rana A, Chisholm GD, Khan M, et al. Conservative management with symptomatic treatment and
delayed hormonal manipulation is justified in men with locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate.
Br J Urol 1994 Nov;74(5):637-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7827816
Parker MC, Cook A, Riddle PR, et al. Is delayed treatment justified in carcinoma of the prostate? Br J
Urol 1985 Dec;57(6):724-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4084734
Studer UE, Whelan P, Albrecht W, et al. Immediate or deferred androgen deprivation for patients
with prostate cancer not suitable for local treatment with curative intent: European Organisation for
Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Trial 30891. J Clin Oncol 2006 Apr;24(12):1868-76.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16622261
Studer UE, Collette L, Whelan P, et al; EORTC Genitourinary Group. Using PSA to guide timing of
androgen deprivation in patients with T0-4 N0-2 M0 prostate cancer not suitable for local curative
treatment (EORTC 30891). Eur Urol 2008 May;53(5):941-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18191322
[No authors listed] The Medical Research Council Prostate Cancer Working Party Investigators Group.
Immediate versus deferred treatment for advanced prostatic cancer: initial results of the Medical
Research Council Trial. Br J Urol 1997 Feb;79(2):235-46.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9052476
Adolfsson J, Steineck G, Hedlund PO. Deferred treatment of locally advanced non-metastatic prostate
cancer: a long-term followup. J Urol 1999 Feb;161(2):505-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9915436
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
62.
Walsh PC. Immediate versus deferred treatment for advanced prostatic cancer: initial results of
the Medical Research Council trial. The Medical Research Council Prostate Cancer Working Party
Investigators Group. J Urol 1997 Oct;158(4):1623-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9302187
9. TREATMENT: RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
9.1 Introduction
The surgical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) consists of radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves the
removal of the entire prostate gland between the urethra and the bladder, and resection of both seminal
vesicles along with sufficient surrounding tissue to obtain a negative margin. Often, this procedure is
accompanied by a bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection. In men with localised PCa and a life expectancy
> 10 years, the goal of an RP by any approach must be eradication of disease, while preserving continence
and whenever possible potency (1). There is no age threshold for RP and a patient should not be denied this
procedure on the grounds of age alone (2). Rather, increasing co-morbidity greatly increases the risk of dying
from non-PCa-related causes (3,4). An estimation of life expectancy is paramount in counselling a patient
about surgery.
Radical prostatectomy was first applied at the beginning of the 20th century by Young (5) using a
perineal approach, while Memmelaar and Millin were the first to perform retropubic RP (6). In 1982, Walsh
and Donker described the anatomy of the dorsal venous complex and the neurovascular bundles (NVBs). This
resulted in a significant reduction in blood loss and improved continence and potency rates (7). Currently, RP
is the only treatment for localised PCa to show a benefit for cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared with
conservative management, as shown in a prospective, randomised trial (8). Surgical expertise has decreased
the complication rates of RP and improved cancer cure (9-12).
Total surgical removal is an excellent treatment option in well-selected patients with localised PCa. If
performed by an experienced surgeon, the patient’s subsequent quality of life should be satisfactory. Lower
rates of positive surgical margins for high-volume surgeons suggest that experience and careful attention to
surgical details, adjusted for the characteristics of the cancer being treated, can decrease positive surgical
margin rates and improve cancer control with RP (13).
Radical retropubic prostactectomy (RRP) and perineal prostatectomy are performed through open
incisions, while more recently minimally invasive laparoscopic (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
(RALP) have been developed. The retropubic approach is more commonly performed over the perineal
procedure, as it enables simultaneous pelvic lymph node assessment. It has been suggested that perineal RP
might result in positive surgical margins more often than the retropubic approach (14), but this has not been
confirmed (15). In the past decade, several European centres have acquired considerable experience with LRP
(16-19). More recently, RALP has been developed.
A recent in-depth systematic review of the literature compared the results of RRP versus LRP/RALP. It
was concluded that LRP and RALP were followed by a significantly lower blood loss and transfusion rate, but
the available data were not sufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of functional
and oncological outcomes (20). It has been suggested that the need for salvage therapy (with external
beam radiation therapy [EBRT] or androgen-deprivation therapy) within 6 months of LRP and RALP is much
higher than following RRP (21). In a more recent study (22), those who underwent LRP or RALP versus RRP
experienced:
•
shorter length of stay;
•
fewer respiratory and miscellaneous surgical complications and strictures;
•
similar post-operative use of additional cancer therapies;
•
more genitourinary complications, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction.
Clearly, even though RALP is displacing RRP as the gold standard surgical approach for clinically localised
PCa in the USA and some regions in Europe, it is still not clear which technique is superior in terms of
oncological and functional results and cost-effectiveness. Prospective trials are urgently needed.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
43
9.2 Low-risk, localised PCa: cT1-T2a and Gleason score 2-6 and PSA < 10
Patients with low-risk, localised PCa should be informed about the results of the randomised trial comparing
retropubic RP versus watchful waiting in localised PCa. In this study, RP reduced prostate cancer mortality
and the risk of metastases in men younger than 65 years with little or no further increase in benefit 10 or
more years after surgery (8).
9.2.1 Stage T1a-T1b PCa
Stage T1a PCa is defined as an incidental histological finding of cancer in 5% or less of resected prostatic
tissue (transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP] or open adenomectomy). Stage T1b PCa is defined as
> 5% cancer. Published series have shown a pT0 stage of 4-21% and an organ-confined stage in 47-85% at
subsequent RP (23).
A Swedish register-based study of 23,288 men with incidental PCa detected at TURP or open
adenoma enucleation largely before the prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-era showed a 10-year PCa mortality of
26.6%. There were no details of the PSA level or Gleason score nor the numbers of cases with cT1a or cT1b
PCa (24). Other older studies have shown that, even though the risk of disease progression of untreated T1a
PCa after 5 years is only 5%, these cancers can progress in about 50% of cases after 10-13 years (25). Thus,
it was believed that in younger patients with a life-expectancy of 15 years or more, the chance of disease
progression was real. In contrast, most patients with T1b tumours were expected to show disease progression
after 5 years, and aggressive treatment was often warranted (25). Patients with T1b lesions were offered RP
when they have a life expectancy of 10 years or more.
Nevertheless, it remained unclear whether these findings would still be valid in the PSA era. In a recent analysis
of T1a/b PCa:
•
The only significant predictors of the presence of residual cancer at RRP were PSA measured before
and after surgery for BPH and Gleason score at surgery for BPH.
•
The only independent predictors of biochemical recurrence after RRP were PSA measured after
surgery for BPH and Gleason score at surgery for BPH.
•
The stage (cT1a or cT1b) lost its significance in predicting the above-mentioned outcomes.
A predictive model has been proposed, which incorporates the PSA level before and after surgery and the
Gleason score at surgery for BPH. The model has a predictive accuracy of 83.2% for estimating residual
tumour and 87.5% for estimating biochemical progression, but needs external validation before it can be used
in daily practice (26).
Systematic prostate biopsies of the remnant prostate may be useful in detecting residual cancer or
concomitant peripheral zone cancer, or to ascertain a more correct tumour grade. Radical prostatectomy may
be very difficult after a thorough TURP, when almost no residual prostate is left behind (27).
9.2.2 Stage T1c and T2a PCa
Clinically unapparent tumour identified by needle biopsy because of an elevated PSA (cT1c) has become the
most prevalent type of PCa. In an individual patient, it is difficult to differentiate between clinically insignificant
and life-threatening PCa. Most reports, however, stress that cT1c tumours are mostly significant and should
not be left untreated as up to 30% of cT1c tumours are locally advanced disease at final histopathology
(28). The proportion of insignificant tumours varies between 11% and 16% (29,30). Increasing the number of
biopsies may carry the risk of detecting a higher number of insignificant cancers. However, a recent study has
shown that increasing the number of biopsies to 12 did not increase the number of insignificant tumours (31).
The major problem is how to recognise those tumours that do not need RP. The biopsy findings and the free
PSA ratio are helpful in predicting insignificant disease (32). Partin tables may be very helpful in better selecting
patients requiring surgical treatment because of their ability to provide an estimation of the final pathological
stage (33). Other authors have suggested the incorporation of biopsy information, such as the number of
cores or the percentage of cores invaded (34). When only one or a few cores are invaded and the percentage
of invasion in one core is limited, the chance of finding an insignificant PCa is more likely, certainly when the
lesion is of low Gleason grade (35). It might be reasonable to follow up some patients whose tumours are most
likely to be insignificant.
In general, however, RP should be advocated for patients with T1c tumours, bearing in mind that
significant tumours will be found in most of these individuals. Stage T2a patients with a 10-year life expectancy
should be offered RP since 35-55% of them will have disease progression after 5 years if not treated. If active
monitoring is proposed for low-grade T2 cancer, it should be remembered that pre-operative assessment of
tumour grade by needle biopsy is often unreliable (36).
44
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
An extended pelvic lymph node dissection (eLND) is not necessary in low-risk, localised PCa, as the risk for
positive lymph nodes does not exceed 7% (37).
9.3
Intermediate-risk, localised PCa: cT2b-T2c or Gleason score = 7 or PSA 10-20
Patients with intermediate-risk, localised PCa should be informed about the results of the randomised
trial comparing RRP versus watchful waiting in localised PCa. In this study, RP reduced prostate cancer
mortality and risk of metastases in men younger than 65 years with little or no further increase in benefit 10
or more years after surgery (8).
Radical prostatectomy is one of the recommended standard treatments for patients with intermediate-risk PCa
and a life expectancy of more than 10 years (38). The prognosis is excellent when the tumour is confined to
the prostate based on pathological examination (39,40). A policy of WW has been proposed for some patients
with intermediate-risk localised tumours (41). However, when the tumour is palpable or visible on imaging
and clinically still confined to the prostate, disease progression can be expected in most long-term survivors.
The median time to progression of untreated T2 disease is reported to be 6-10 years. Stage T2b cancer still
confined to the prostate, but involving more than half of a lobe or both lobes, will progress in more than 70%
of patients within 5 years (42). These data have been confirmed by a large randomised trial comparing RP and
WW that included mostly T2 PCa patients showing a significant reduction in disease-specific mortality in favour
of RP (8).
An eLND should be performed in intermediate-risk, localised PCa if the estimated risk for positive lymph
nodes exceeds 7% (37). In all other cases, an eLND can be omitted, which means accepting a low risk of
missing positive nodes. A limited lymph node dissection should no longer be performed, as this will miss at
least half of the nodes involved.
9.3.1 Oncological results of RP in low- and intermediate-risk PCa
The results achieved in a number of studies involving RP are shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Oncological results of RP in organ-confined disease
Reference
No. of patients
Year of RP
Median followup (months)
122
10-year PSAfree survival
60
10-year cancerspecific survival
94
Isbarn et al.
(2009) (43)
Roehl et al.
(2004) (44)
Han et al. (2001)
(45)
Hull et al. (2002)
(46)
Porter et al.
(2006) (47)
436
1992-97
3478
1983-2003
65
68
97
2404
1982-99
75
74
96
1000
1983-98
53
75
98
752
1954-94
137
71
96
Recently, the first externally validated nomogram predicting prostate cancer-specific mortality after RP for
patients treated in the PSA era was published. The nomogram predicted that few patients will die from PCa
within 15 years of RP, despite the presence of adverse clinical features. This nomogram can be used in patient
counselling and clinical trial design (48).
9.4 High-risk localised PCa: cT3a or Gleason score 8-10 or PSA > 20
The widespread use of PSA testing has led to a significant migration in stage and grade of PCa, with > 90% of
men in the current era diagnosed with clinically localised disease (49). Despite the trends towards lower-risk
PCa, 20-35% of patients with newly diagnosed PCa are still classified as high risk, based on either PSA > 20
ng/mL, Gleason score > 8, or an advanced clinical stage (50). Patients classified with high-risk PCa are at an
increased risk of PSA failure, the need for secondary therapy, metastatic progression and death from PCa.
Nevertheless, not all high-risk patients have a uniformly poor prognosis after RP (51).
There is no consensus regarding the optimal treatment of men with high-risk PCa. Decisions on
whether to elect surgery as local therapy should be based on the best available clinical evidence.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
45
9.4.1 Locally advanced PCa: cT3a
Stage T3a cancer is defined as cancer that has perforated the prostate capsule. In the past, locally advanced
PCa was seen in about 40% of all clinically diagnosed tumours. This figure is lower today, although its
management remains controversial. Surgical treatment of clinical stage T3 PCa has traditionally been
discouraged (52), mainly because patients have an increased risk of positive surgical margins and lymph
node metastases and/or distant relapse (53,54). Several randomised studies of radiotherapy combined with
androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) versus radiotherapy alone have shown a clear advantage for combination
treatment, but no trial has ever proven combined treatment to be superior to RP (55). Another problem is
‘contamination’ by the additional use of either adjuvant radiotherapy or immediate or delayed hormonal therapy
(HT) in most series reporting the treatment of clinical T3 PCa. In recent years, there has been renewed interest
in surgery for locally advanced PCa, and several retrospective case-series have been published. Although still
controversial, it is increasingly evident that surgery has a place in treating locally advanced disease (56-61).
Over-staging of cT3 PCa is relatively frequent and occurs in 13-27% of cases. Patients with pT2
disease and patients with specimen-confined pT3 disease have similarly good biochemical and clinical PFS
(60,61). In about 33.5-66% of patients, positive section margins will be present, and 7.9-49% will have positive
lymph nodes (62). Thus, 56-78% of patients primarily treated by surgery eventually require adjuvant or salvage
radiotherapy or HT (60,61). Nevertheless, excellent 5-, 10- and 15-year overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific
survival (CSS) rates have been published (Table 15). These rates surpass radiotherapy-alone series and are
no different from radiotherapy combined with adjuvant hormonal therapy series (55). The problem remains the
selection of patients before surgery. Nomograms, including PSA level, stage and Gleason score, can be useful
in predicting the pathological stage of disease (33,62). In addition, nodal imaging with computed tomography
(CT or MRI), and seminal vesicle imaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or directed specific puncture
biopsies of the nodes or seminal vesicles can help to identify those patients unlikely to benefit from a surgical
approach (63). Radical prostatectomy for clinical T3 cancer requires sufficient surgical expertise to keep the
level of morbidity acceptable. Increased overall surgical experience must contribute to a decreased operative
morbidity and to better functional results after RP for clinical T3 cancer (60,64). It has been shown that
continence can be preserved in most cases, while in selected cases, potency can also be preserved (65).
Table 15: Overall and cancer-specific survival rates for prostate cancer.
Survival no. of Median and/
OS (%)
CSS (%)
BPFS (%)
rate
patients or mean 5 y 10 y 15 y 5 y 10 y 15 y 5 y 10 y 15 y
follow-up
Yamada 57
Median, 5.4 y 91.2 -
- 45.5
-
et al.
(77.6 at 7.5 y)
(PSA > 0.4)
(1994) (56)
Gerber 242
Mean, 39 m
- 85 57
- -
et al.
Median, 26 m
(1997) (57)
Van den 83
Median, 52 m 75
60
- 85 72
- 29
-
Ouden (PSA > 0.1)
et al.
(1998) (58)
Isorna 83
Mean, 68.7 m 97.6 94.8 - 100
-
- 59.8 -
Martinez (cT3a only)
(PSA > 0.3)
de la Riva
et al.
(2004) (59)
Ward 841
Median, 10.3 y 90
76
53 95 90
79 58
43
38
et al.
(PSA > 0.4)
(2005) (60)
Hsu et al. 200
Mean, 70.6 m 95.9 77
-
98.7 91.6 - 59.5 51.1 -
(2007) (61)
(cT3a only)
(PSA > 0.2)
5y
CPFS (%)
10 y 15 y
81.4
-
-
72
32
(meta free)
-
59
31
-
-
-
-
85
73
67
95.9 85.4
-
BPFS = biochemical progression-free survival; CSS = cancer-specific survival; CPFS = clinical progression-free
survival; OS = overall survival; PSA = prostate-specific antigen.
9.4.2 High-grade PCa: Gleason score 8-10
Although most poorly differentiated tumours extend outside the prostate, the incidence of organ-
46
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
confined disease is between 26% and 31%. Patients with high-grade tumours confined to the prostate
at histopathological examination still have a good prognosis after RP. Furthermore, one-third of patients
with a biopsy Gleason score > 8 may in fact have a specimen Gleason score < 7 with better prognostic
characteristics. The PSA value and percentage of positive prostate biopsies may help to select men with highgrade PCa most likely to benefit from RP (66).
9.4.3 PCa with PSA > 20
Yossepowitch et al. reported the results of RP as a monotherapy in men with PSA > 20 ng/mL in a cohort with
mostly clinically organ-confined tumours and found a PSA failure rate of 44% and 53% at 5 and 10 years,
respectively (51). D’Amico et al. found that men with PSA levels > 20 ng/mL had a 50% risk of PSA failure at 5
years after RP (67). Tiguert and co-workers presented the outcome for an identical cohort of patients who had
a disease-free survival of 65% at 5 years after RP (68). More recently, Inman and co-workers described the
long-term outcomes of RP with multimodal adjuvant therapy in men with PSA > 50. Systemic progression-free
survival rates at 10 years were 83% and 74% for PSA 50-99 and > 100, respectively, while CSS was 87% for
the whole group. These results argue for aggressive management with RP as the initial step (69).
n eLND should be performed in all high-risk cases, as the estimated risk for positive lymph nodes will be in
A
the range 15-40% (37). A limited lymph node dissection should no longer be performed, as this will miss at
least half of the nodes involved.
9.5 Very high-risk localised prostate cancer: cT3b-T4 N0 or any T, N1
9.5.1 cT3b-T4 N0
Men with very high-risk PCa generally have a significant risk of disease progression and cancer-related death if
left untreated. Very high-risk patients present two specific challenges. There is a need for local control as well
as a need to treat any microscopic metastases likely to be present but undetectable until disease progression.
The optimal treatment approach will therefore often necessitate multiple modalities. The exact combinations,
timing, and intensity of treatment continue to be strongly debated. A recent US study showed that patients
who underwent RP (n = 72) for cT4 disease had a better survival than those who received HT alone or RT alone
and comparable survival to that of men who received RT plus HT (70).
Another study compared the outcomes of RP in very high-risk PCa (T3-T4 N0-1, N1, M1a) with those
in localised PCa. The two groups did not differ significantly in surgical morbidity except for blood transfusion,
operative time, and lymphoceles, which showed a higher rate in patients with advanced disease. Overall
survival and CSS at 7 years were 76.69% and 90.2% in the advanced disease group and 88.4% and 99.3% in
the organ-confined disease group, respectively (71).
Provided that the tumour is not fixed to the pelvic wall, or that there is no invasion of the urethral
sphincter, RP is a reasonable first step in selected patients with a low tumour volume. Management decisions
should be made after all treatments have been discussed by a multidisciplinary team (including urologists,
oncologists, radiologists, and pathologists), and after the balance of benefits and side-effects of each therapy
modality has been considered by the patient with regard to his own individual circumstances.
9.5.2 Any T, N1
The indication for RP in all previously described stages assumes the absence of clinically detectable nodal
involvement. Lymph node-positive (N+) disease will mostly be followed by systemic disease progression, and
all patients with significant N+ disease will ultimately fail treatment.
Nevertheless, the combination of RP and early adjuvant hormonal treatment in N+ PCa has been
shown to achieve a 10-year CSS rate of 80% (72,73). Most urologists are reluctant to perform RP for clinical
N+ disease, or will cancel surgery if a frozen section shows lymph node invasion. However, a recent study has
shown a dramatic improvement in CSS and OS in favour of completed RP versus abandoned RP in patients
who were found to be N+ at the time of surgery. These results suggest that RP may have a survival benefit and
the abandonment of RP in node-positive cases may not be justified (74).
It should also be noted that the definitive pathological examination after RP could show microscopic
lymph node invasion. The incidence of tumour progression is lower in patients with fewer positive lymph nodes
and in those with microscopic invasion only (75,76). In patients who prove to be pN+ after RP, early adjuvant
HT has been shown to improve significantly CSS and OS in a prospective randomised trial. However, this
trial included mostly patients with high-volume nodal disease and multiple adverse tumour characteristics.
It is unclear whether early adjuvant HT should still be applied in the present era of increased detection of
microscopic involvement as a result of more extensive lymph node dissection. The benefits should be judged
against the side-effects of long-term HT. Follow-up of PSA and HT in the case of an increase in PSA level is
therefore an acceptable option in selected cases.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
47
9.6 Summary of RP in high-risk localised disease
RP is a reasonable treatment option in selected patients with cT3a PCa, Gleason score 8-10 or PSA > 20.
If RP is performed, an extended pelvic lymphadenectomy must be performed, as lymph node involvement
is common.
The patient must be informed about the likelihood of a multimodal approach. In case of adverse tumour
characteristics (positive section margin, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion), adjuvant RT may
be reasonably used after recuperation from surgery.
• Recently, Thompson and colleagues reported the results of a trial enrolling 431 men with pT3N0M0
PCa treated with RP. Patients were randomised to receive 60-64 Gy adjuvant RT or observation.
Metastasis-free survival and OS were significantly better with radiotherapy (77). In cases of positive
lymph nodes at final histopathology, adjuvant ADT may be considered.
• Messing et al. examined the role of immediate ADT versus observation in patients with positive
lymph nodes at initial surgery. At a median follow-up of 11.9 years, those receiving immediate ADT
had a significant improvement in OS over those managed with observation (73).
9.7 Indication and extent of extended pelvic lymph node dissection (eLND)
Although it is generally accepted that eLND provides important information for prognosis (number of nodes
involved, tumour volume within the lymph node, capsular perforation of the node) that cannot be matched
by any other current procedure, consensus has not been reached as to when eLND is indicated and to what
extent it should be performed. When making such decisions, many physicians rely on nomograms based on
pre-operative biochemical markers and biopsies (33).
According to these nomograms, patients with a PSA value < 10 ng/mL and a biopsy Gleason score
< 7 have a low risk of lymph node metastasis and, therefore, eLND might not be beneficial. However, the fact
that most nomograms are based on a limited eLND (obturator fossa and external iliac vein) probably results
in underestimation of the incidence of patients with positive nodes (37). Lymphography studies have shown
that the prostate drains not only to the obturator and external iliac but also to the internal iliac and pre-sacral
lymph nodes. Performing an eLND results in removal of all lymph nodes in these particular anatomical regions,
producing a higher yield of removed lymph nodes (mean of 20 nodes) compared with limited LND (mean of
8-10 nodes).
In patients with a PSA value < 10 and a Gleason score > 7, an incidence of 25% nodal involvement
was reported (78). Different reports mention that 19-35% of positive lymph nodes are found exclusively outside
the area of the traditionally limited LND (79,80). Clearly, the removal of a greater number of nodes results in
improved staging. In the largest study of its kind, a cut-off < 2 versus > 2 affected nodes was shown to be an
independent predictor of CSS (75).
9.7.1 Conclusions
An extended pelvic lymph node dissection (eLND) is not necessary in low-risk, localised PCa, as the risk for
positive lymph nodes does not exceed 7% (37).
An eLND should be performed in intermediate-risk, localised PCa if the estimated risk for positive
lymph nodes exceeds 7%, as well as in high-risk cases. In these circumstances, the estimated risk for positive
lymph nodes will be in the range 15-40% (37). A limited lymph node dissection should no longer be performed,
as this will miss at least half of the nodes involved.
9.7.2 Extent of eLND
Extended pelvic lymph node dissection (eLND) includes removal of the nodes overlying the external iliac
artery and vein, the nodes within the obturator fossa cranially and caudally to the obturator nerve, and the
nodes medially and laterally to the internal ileac artery. According to lymph node mapping studies, some have
advocated extending the template to include the common iliac lymph nodes up to the ureteric crossing. With
this template, 75% of all anatomical landing sites are cleared (81). For an eLND to be representative, a mean
of 20 lymph nodes should be removed (82). It is recommended that the nodes should be sent in separate
containers per region for histopathology, as this will usually be associated with a higher diagnostic gain by the
uro-pathologist.
9.7.3 Therapeutic role of eLND
Besides being a staging procedure, (extended) pelvic lymph node dissection can be curative, or at least
beneficial, in a subset of patients with limited lymph node metastases (83-85). In some series, the number
of nodes removed during lymphadenectomy correlated significantly with time to progression (86). In one
population-based study with a 10-year follow-up, patients undergoing excision of at least four lymph nodes
(node-positive and node-negative patients) or more than 10 nodes (only node-negative patients) had a lower
48
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
risk of prostate cancer-specific death at 10 years than did those who did not undergo lymphadenectomy (87).
Further studies should confirm these results.
9.7.4 Morbidity
Extended pelvic lymph node dissection remains a surgical procedure, which adds morbidity to the treatment
of PCa. When comparing extended versus limited LND, threefold higher complication rates were reported
by some authors (88). Complications consist of lymphocoeles, lymphoedema, deep venous thrombosis, and
pulmonary embolism. Other authors, however, reported more acceptable complication rates (89,90).
9.7.5 Summary of eLND
LND may play a role in the treatment of a subset of intermediate-risk cases with > 7% nomogram predicted
e
risk of positive lymph nodes, and in all high-risk cases.
eLND may increase staging accuracy and influence decision-making with respect to adjuvant therapy.
The number of lymph nodes removed correlates with the time to progression.
Surgery-related morbidity has to be balanced against the therapeutic effects, and a decision will have to be
made based on individual cases.
9.8 Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy and RP
Generally, neoadjuvant or up-front hormonal therapy is defined as therapy given prior to definitive local
curative treatment (e.g. surgery or radiation therapy). As PCa is an androgen-dependent tumour, neoadjuvant
hormonal therapy (NHT) is an appealing concept. Attempts to decrease the size of the prostate before RP
were first reported by Vallett as early as 1944 (91). In a recent review and meta-analysis, the role of NHT and
prostatectomy were studied (92). Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy prior to prostatectomy did not improve
overall or disease-free survival, but did significantly reduce positive margin rates (relative risk [RR]: 0.49; 95%
confidence interval [CI]: 0.42–0.56, p < 0.00001), organ confinement (RR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.37-1.95, p < 0.0001)
and lymph node invasion (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.42-0.56, p < 0.02). Thus, the absence of improvement in
clinically important outcomes (overall, disease-specific survival or biochemical disease-free survival) was
demonstrated despite improvements in putative pathological surrogate outcomes, such as margin-free positive
status. This calls into question the use of these pathological markers of treatment outcomes as valid surrogates
for clinically relevant outcomes.
Further studies are needed to investigate the application of HT as both neo-adjuvant treatment and
its incorporation with chemotherapy in early disease. More information is also needed to evaluate these agents
in terms of side-effects and quality of life, which are lacking in the majority of studies presented in this review.
Further cost analyses should be undertaken to bring data up to date. A recent Cochrane review and metaanalysis studied the role of adjuvant HT following RP: the pooled data for 5-year OS showed an odds ratio (OR)
of 1.50 and 95% CI: 0.79-2.84. This finding was not statistically significant, though there was a trend favouring
adjuvant HT. Similarly, there was no survival advantage at 10 years. The pooled data for disease-free survival
gave an overall OR of 3.73 and 95% CI: 2.3-6.03. The overall effect estimate was highly statistically significant
(p < 0.00001) in favour of the hormonal treatment arm.
It is noteworthy that the Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group (EPC) trial was not included in the
Cochrane review. The third update from this large randomised trial of bicalutamide, 150 mg once daily, in
addition to standard care in localised and locally advanced, non-metastatic PCa was published in November
2005 (93). Median follow-up was 7.2 years. There was a significant improvement in objective progressionfree survival in the RP group. This improvement was only statistically significant in the locally advanced
disease group (hazards ratio [HR] 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.91). There was no significant improvement in OS in the
RP-treated groups (localised and locally advanced disease). In the WW group, there was an OS trend in favour
of WW alone in the localised disease group (HR 1.16; 95% CI: 0.99-1.37).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
49
9.8.1 Summary of neoadjuvant and adjuvant hormonal treatment and RP
eoadjuvant hormonal therapy before RP does not provide a significant OS advantage over prostatectomy
N
alone.
Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before RP does not provide a significant advantage in disease-free survival
over prostatectomy alone.
Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy before RP does substantially improve local pathological variables such
as organ-confined rates, pathological down-staging, positive surgical margins and rate of lymph node
involvement.
Adjuvant hormonal therapy following RP shows no survival advantage at 10 years.
Adjuvant hormonal therapy following RP: the overall effect estimate for disease-free survival was highly
statistically significant (p < 0.00001) in favour of the hormonal therapy arm.
9.9 Complications and functional outcome
The post-operative complications of RP are listed in Table 16. The mortality rate is 0-1.5% (87); urinary
fistulas are seen in 1.2-4% of patients (94); and urinary incontinence persists after 1 year in 7.7% (95). In men
undergoing prostatectomy, the rates of post-operative and late urinary complications are significantly reduced
if the procedure is performed in a high-volume hospital and by a surgeon who performs a large number of such
procedures (96-98). Erectile dysfunction used to occur in nearly all patients, but nerve-sparing techniques can
be applied in early-stage disease (99). Patients who benefit from nerve-sparing RP may have a higher chance
of local disease recurrence and should therefore be selected carefully.
Table 16: Complications of RP
Complication
Peri-operative death
Major bleeding
Rectal injury
Deep venous thrombosis
Pulmonary embolism
Lymphocoele
Urine leak, fistula
Slight stress incontinence
Severe stress incontinence
Impotence
Bladder neck obstruction
Ureteral obstruction
Urethral stricture
9.10
Incidence (%)
0.0-2.1
1.0-11.5
0.0-5.4
0.0-8.3
0.8-7.7
1.0-3.0
0.3-15.4
4.0-50.0
0.0-15.4
29.0-100.0
0.5-14.6
0.0-0.7
2.0-9.0
Summary of indications for nerve-sparing surgery* (100-104)
Reference name
Pre-operative selection criteria
Stage > T2
PSA > 10
Biopsy Gleason score 7
Biopsy Gleason score 8-10
Partin tables
Side with > 50% tumour in biopsy
Side with perineural invasion
Intra-operative selection criteria
Side of palpable tumour
Side of positive biopsy
Induration of lateral pelvic fascia
Adherence to neurovascular bundles
Positive section margins
Sofer
(100)
Walsh
(101)
Alsikafi
(102)
Graefen
(103)
Bianco
(104)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+/-
+
+
+
+
+
24%
+
+
5%
11%
15.9%
+
+
5%
*Clinical criteria used by different authors when NOT to perform a nerve-sparing RP
50
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
Nerve-sparing RP can be performed safely in most men undergoing RP (104,105). In the past decade,
a dramatic shift towards lower-stage tumours has become evident. More importantly, men are younger at
the time of diagnosis and more interested in preserving sexual function. Nevertheless, clear contraindications
are those patients in whom there is a high risk of extracapsular disease, such as any cT3 PCa, cT2c, any
Gleason score > 7 on biopsy, or more than one biopsy > 6 at the ipsilateral side. Partin tables will help to guide
decision-making (33).
If any doubt remains regarding residual tumour, the surgeon should remove the neurovascular bundle
(NVB). Alternatively, the use of intra-operative frozen-section analysis can help guide these decisions. This is
especially helpful in patients with a lesion palpable close to the capsule during nerve-sparing RP. A wedge
of the prostate can then be resected and inked differently. In case of presence of carcinoma adherent to
the capsule on frozen section analysis, the NVB is resected; otherwise, the NVB remains in situ. In patients
with intra-operatively detected tumour lesions during a nerve-sparing, planned RP, frozen section analysis
objectively supports the decision of secondary NVB resection as well as preservation (106).
The patient must be informed before surgery about the risks of nerve-sparing surgery, the potency
rates achieved by the surgeon, and the possibility that, to ensure adequate cancer control, the nerves may be
sacrificed despite any pre-operative optimism favouring the potential for their salvage.
The early administration of intracavernous injection therapy could improve the definitive potency rates
(107,108) and the significance of sural nerve transplant needs further multicentre study (109). Finally, the early
use of PDE-5 inhibitors in penile rehabilitation remains controversial. A recent placebo-controlled prospective
study showed no benefit from daily early administration of vardenafil versus on-demand vardenafil in the
post-operative period (110), while another placebo-controlled prospective study showed sildenafil to have a
significant impact on return of normal spontaneous erections (111).
9.11 Guidelines and recommendations for radical prostatectomy
Indications
In patients with low and intermediate risk localised PCa (cT1a-T2b and Gleason score 2-7 and PSA
< 20) and a life expectancy > 10 years
Optional
Patients with stage T1a disease and a life expectancy >15 yr or Gleason score 7
Selected patients with low-volume high-risk localised PCa (cT3a or Gleason score 8-10 or PSA > 20)
Highly selected patients with very high-risk localised PCa (cT3b-T4 N0 or any T N1) in the context of
multimodality treatment
Recommendations
Short-term (3-months) or long-term (9-months) neoadjuvant therapy with gonadotrophin-releasing
hormone analogues is not recommended in the treatment of stage T1–T2 disease
Nerve-sparing surgery may be attempted in pre-operatively potent patients with low risk for
extracapsular disease (T1c, Gleason score < 7 and PSA < 10 ng/mL or see Partin tables/nomograms)
Unilateral nerve-sparing procedures are an option in stage T2a disease
LE
1b
3
3
1a
3
4
9.12 References
1.
Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and
recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta’). Urology 2005 Nov;66(5Suppl):83-94.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16194712
Corral DA, Bahnson RR. Survival of men with clinically localized prostate cancer detected in the eighth
decade of life. J Urol 1994 May;151(5):1326-29.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8158780
Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, et al. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74
years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998
Sep;280(11):975-80.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9749479
Tewari A, Johnson CC, Divine G, et al. Long-term survival probability in men with clinically localized
prostate cancer: a case-control, propensity modeling study stratified by race, age, treatment and
comorbidities. J Urol 2004 Apr;171(4):1513-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15017210
Young H. Radical perineal prostatectomy. Johns Hopkins Hosp Bull 1905;16:315-21.
Memmelaar J, Millin T. Total prostatovesiculectomy; retropubic approach. J Urol 1949 Sep;62(3):
340-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18148289
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. UPDATE JANUARY 2011
51
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
22. 23.
52
Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention.
J Urol 1982 Sep;128(3):492-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7120554
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filén F, et al; Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4.
Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate
cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 Aug;100(16):1144-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695132
Potosky AL, Warren JL. Radical prostatectomy: does higher volume lead to better quality? J Natl
Cancer Inst 1999 Nov;91(22):1906-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10564667
Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN. Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical
retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 2001 Nov;166(5):1729-33.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11586211
Augustin H, Hammerer P, Graefen M, et al. Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity of contemporary
radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1243 patients: results of a single center
between 1999 and 2002. Eur Urol 2003 Feb;43(2):113-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12565767
Maffezzini M, Seveso M, Taverna G, et al. Evaluation of complications and results in a contemporary
series of 300 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies with the anatomic approach at a single
institution. Urology 2003 May;61(5):982-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12736020
Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive
surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003 Dec;170(6 Pt 1):2292-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14634399
Boccon-Gibod L, Ravery V, Vortos D, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the perineal
approach increases the risk of surgically induced positive margins and capsular incisions. J Urol 1998
Oct;160(4):1383-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9751359
Weldon VE, Tavel FR, Neuwirth H, et al. Patterns of positive specimen margins and detectable
prostate specific antigen after radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 1995 May;153(5):1565-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7536268
Lein M, Stibane I, Mansour R, et al. Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcome of
1000 laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomies–experience at the Charité Hospital Berlin,
Campus Mitte. Eur Urol 2006 Dec;50(6):1278-82; discussion 1283-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16846677
Goeman L, Salomon L, De La Taille A, et al. Long-term functional and oncological results after
retroperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy according to prospective evaluation of 550 patients. World
J Urol 2006 Aug;24(3):281-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16508788
Rassweiler J, Stolzenburg J, Sulser T, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy– the experience of
the German Laparoscopic Working Group. Eur Urol 2006 Jan;49(1):113-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16337330
Rozet F, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a
prospective evaluation of 600 cases. J Urol 2005 Sep;174(3):908-11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16093985
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical
prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009
May;55(5):1037-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19185977
Hu JC, Wang Q, Pashos CL, et al. Utilisation and outcomes of minimally invasive radical
prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2008 May 10;26(14):2278-84.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18467718
Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical
prostatectomy. JAMA 2009 Oct 14;302(14):1557-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826025
Capitanio U, Scattoni V, Freschi M, et al. Radical prostatectomy for incidental (stage T1a-T1b)
prostate cancer: analysis of predictors for residual disease and biochemical recurrence. Eur Urol 2008
Jul;54(1):118-25.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18314255
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
24. 25. 26.
27. 28.
29. 30. 31. 32. 33.
34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Andrèn O, Garmo H, Mucci L, et al. Incidence and mortality of incidental prostate cancer: a Swedish
register-based study. Br J Cancer 2009 Jan;100(1):170-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19088721
Lowe BA, Listrom MB. Incidental carcinoma of the prostate: an analysis of the predictors of
progression. J Urol 1988 Dec;140(6):1340-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3193495
Capitanio U, Scattoni V, Freschi M, et al. Radical prostatectomy for incidental (stage T1a-T1b)
prostate cancer: analysis of predictors for residual disease and biochemical recurrence. Eur Urol 2008
Jul;54(1):118-25.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18314255
Van Poppel H, Ameye F, Oyen R, et al. Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Eur J
Surg Oncol 1992 Oct;18(5):456-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1426296
Elgamal AA, Van Poppel HP, Van de Voorde WM, et al. Impalpable invisible stage T1c prostate cancer:
characteristics and clinical relevance in 100 radical prostatectomy specimens–a different view. J Urol
1997 Jan;157(1):244-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8976263
Oesterling JE, Suman VJ, Zincke H, et al. PSA-detected (clinical stage T1c or B0) prostate cancer.
Pathologically significant tumors. Urol Clin North Am 1993 Nov;20(4):687-93.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7505977
Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Brendler CB. Radical prostatectomy for impalpable prostate cancer: the Johns
Hopkins experience with tumors found on transurethral resection (stages T1A and T1B) and on needle
biopsy (stage T1C). J Urol 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 2):1721-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7523719
Singh H, Canto EI, Shariat SF, et al. Improved detection of clinically significant, curable prostate
cancer with systematic 12-core biopsy. J Urol 2004 Mar;171(3):1089-92.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14767277
Epstein JI, Chan DW, Sokoll LJ, et al. Nonpalpable stage T1c prostate cancer: prediction of
insignificant disease using free/total prostate specific antigen levels and needle biopsy findings. J Urol
1998 Dec;160(6 Pt 2):2407-11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9817393
Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, et al. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging
nomograms (Partin tables) for the new millennium. Urology 2001 Dec;58(6):843-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11744442
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Combination of preoperative PSA level, biopsy
Gleason score, percentage of positive biopsies and MRI T-stage to predict early failure in men with
clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 2000 Apr;55(4):572-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10736506
Epstein JI. Gleason score 2-4 adenocarcinoma of the prostate on needle biopsy: a diagnosis that
should not be made. Am J Surg Pathol 2000 Apr;24(4):477-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10757394
Epstein JI, Steinberg GD. The significance of low grade prostate cancer on needle biopsy. A radical
prostatectomy study of tumor grade, volume, and stage of the biopsied and multifocal tumor. Cancer
1990 Nov;66(9):1927-32.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:/pubmed/1699655
Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of lymph
node invasion based on the extent of pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically localized
prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006 Oct;98(4):788-93.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16796698
Schroder FH, Van den Ouden D, Davidson P. The role of surgery in the cure of prostatic carcinoma.
Eur Urol Update Series 1992;1:18-23.
Gibbons RP. Total prostatectomy for clinically localized prostatic cancer: long-term surgical results
and current morbidity. NCI Monogr 1988;(7):123-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3173498
Pound CR, Partin AW, Epstein JI, et al. Prostate-specific antigen after anatomic radical retropubic
prostatectomy. Patterns of recurrence and cancer control. Urol Clin North Am 1997 May;24(2):
395-406.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9126237
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
53
41. 42. 43.
44.
45. 46. 47.
48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 54
Johansson JE, Andersson SO. Deferred treatment in localized prostatic cancer. Acta Oncol
1991;30(2):221-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2029410
Graversen PH, Nielsen KT, Gasser TC, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus expectant primary
treatment in stages I and II prostatic cancer. A fifteen-year follow-up. Urology 1990 Dec;36(6):493-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2247914
Isbarn H, Wanner M, Salomon G, et al. Long-term data on the survival of patients with prostate cancer
treated with radical prostatectomy in the prostate-specific antigen era. BJU Int. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20002667
Roehl KA, Han M, Ramos CG, et al. Cancer progression and survival rates following anatomical
radical retropubic prostatectomy in 3,478 consecutive patients: long-term results. J Urol 2004
Sep;172(3):910-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15310996
Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, et al. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer specific survival
following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin
North Am 2001 Aug;28(3):555-65.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11590814
Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000
consecutive patients. J Urol 2002 Feb;167(2 Pt 1):528-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11792912
Porter CR, Kodama K, Gibbons RP, et al. 25-year prostate cancer control and survival outcomes: a
40-year radical prostatectomy single institution series. J Urol 2006 Aug;176:569-74.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16813891
Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. Prostate cancer-specific mortality after radical
prostatectomy for patients treated in the prostate-specific antigen era. J Clin Oncol 2009
Sep;27(26):4300-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19636023
Makarov DV, Trock BJ, Humphreys EB, et al. Updated nomogram to predict pathologic stage of
prostate cancer given prostate-specific antigen level, clinical stage, and biopsy Gleason score (Partin
tables) based on cases from 2000 to 2005. Urology 2007 Jun;69(6):1095-101.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17572194
Shao YH, Demissie K, Shih W, et al. Contemporary risk profile of prostate cancer in the United States.
JNatl Cancer Inst 2009 Sep 16;101(18):1280-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19713548
Yossepowitch O, Eggener SE, Bianco FJ Jr, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically localized, high
risk prostate cancer: critical analysis of risk assessment methods. J Urol 2007 Aug;178(2):493-9;
discussion 499.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17561152
Hodgson D, Warde P, Gospodarowicz M. The management of locally advanced prostate cancer. Urol
Oncol 1998;4:3-12.
Fallon B, Williams RD. Current options in the management of clinical stage C prostatic carcinoma. Urol
Clin North Am 1990 Nov;17(4):853-66.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2219582
Boccon-Gibod L, Bertaccini A, Bono AV, et al. Management of locally advanced prostate cancer: a
European Consensus. Int J Clin Pract 2003 Apr;57(3):187-94.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723722
Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al. Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and
external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III
randomised trial. Lancet 2002 Jul:360(9327):103-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126818
Yamada AH, Lieskovsky G, Petrovich Z, et al. Results of radical prostatectomy and adjuvant therapy
in the management of locally advanced, clinical stage TC, prostate cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1994
Aug;17(4):277-85.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8048388
Gerber GS, Thisted RA, Chodak GW, et al. Results of radical prostatectomy in men with locally
advanced prostate cancer: multi-institutional pooled analysis. Eur Urol 1997;32(4):385-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9412793
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
58.
59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.
66. 67. 68. 69. 70.
71.
72. 73. 74. van den Ouden D, Hop WC, Schroder FH. Progression in and survival of patients with locally
advanced prostate cancer (T3) treated with radical prostatectomy as monotherapy. J Urol 1998
Oct;160(4):1392-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9751362
Isorna Martinez de la Riva S, Belón López-Tomasety J, Marrero Dominguez R, et al. [Radical
prostatectomy as monotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer (T3a): 12 years follow-up]. Arch
Esp Urol 2004 Sep;57(7):679-92. [Article in Spanish]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15536949
Ward JF, Slezak JM, Blute ML, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinically advanced (cT3) prostate
cancer since the advent of prostate-specific antigen testing: 15-year outcome. BJU Int 2005
Apr;95(6):751-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15794776
Hsu CY, Joniau S, Oyen R, et al. Outcome of surgery for clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer: a
single-institution experience. Eur Urol 2007 Jan;51(1):121-8; discussion 128-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16797831
Joniau S, Hsu CY, Lerut E, et al. A pretreatment table for the prediction of final histopathology after
radical prostatectomy in clinical unilateral T3a prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2007 Feb;51(2):388-96.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16901622
Van Poppel H, Ameye F, Oyen R, et al. Accuracy of combined computerized tomography and fine
needle aspiration cytology in lymph node staging of localized prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1994
May;151(5):1310-14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8158777
Van Poppel H, Vekemans K, Da Pozzo L, et al. Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate
cancer: results of a feasibility study (EORTC 30001). Eur J Cancer 2006 May;42(8):1062-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624554
Loeb S, Smith ND, Roehl KA, et al. Intermediate-term potency, continence, and survival outcomes
of radical prostatectomy for clinically high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer. Urology 2007
Jun;69(6):1170-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17572209
Van Poppel H, Joniau S. An analysis of radical prostatectomy in advanced stage and high-grade
prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008 Feb;53(2):253-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17949893
D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen
recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized
prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999 Jan;17(1):168-72.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10458230
Tiguert LL, Harrel F, Fradet Y. Disease outcome of patients with a PSA >20 treated by radical
prostatectomy: analysis of 177 patients. J Urol 2006;175:311A.
Inman BA, Davies JD, Rangel LJ, et al. Long-term outcomes of radical prostatectomy with multimodal
adjuvant therapy in men with a preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level >or = 50 ng/mL.
Cancer 2008 Oct;113(7):1544-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18680171
Johnstone PA, Ward KC, Goodman M, et al. Radical prostatectomy for clinical T4 prostate cancer.
Cancer 2006 Jun;106:2603-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16700037
Gontero P, Marchioro G, Pisani R, et al. Is radical prostatectomy feasible in all cases of locally
advanced non-bone metastatic prostate cancer? Results of a single-institution study. Eur Urol 2007
Apr;51(4):922-9; discussion 929-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17049718
Ghavamian R, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy plus orchiectomy
versus orchiectomy alone for pTxN+ prostate cancer: a matched comparison. J Urol 1999
Apr;161(4):1223-7; discussion 1277-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10081874
Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study EST 3886. Immediate
versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in patients with node-positive prostate cancer after
radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Lancet Oncol 2006 Jun;7(6):472-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16750497
Engel J, Bastian PJ, Baur H, et al. Survival benefit of radical prostatectomy in lymph node-positive
patients with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010 Jan 20. [Epud ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20106588
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
55
75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 56
Briganti A, Karnes JR, Da Pozzo LF, et al. Two positive nodes represent a significant cut-off value
for cancer specific survival in patients with node positive prostate cancer. A new proposal based
on a two-institution experience on 703 consecutive N+ patients treated with radical prostatectomy,
extended pelvic lymph node dissection and adjuvant therapy. Eur Urol 2009 Feb;55(2):261-70.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18838212
Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, et al. Good outcome for patients with few lymph node
metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008 Aug;54(2):344-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18511183
Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate
cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a
randomized clinical trial. J Urol 2009 Mar;181(3):956-62
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19167731
Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, et al. Is pelvic lymph node dissection necessary in
patients with a serum PSA <10ng/mL undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer? Eur Urol
2006 Aug;50(2):272-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16632187
Heidenreich A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients undergoing
radical prostatectomy: high incidence of lymph node metastasis. J Urol 2002 Apr;167(4):1681-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11912387
Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, Studer UE. Disease progression and survival of patients
with positive lymph nodes after radical prostatectomy. Is there a chance of cure? J Urol 2003
Mar;169(3):849-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12576797
Mattei A, Fuechsel FG, Bhatta Dhar N, et al. The template of the primary lymphatic landing sites of the
prostate should be revisited: results of a multimodality mapping study. Eur Urol 2008 Jan;53(1):
118-25.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17709171
Weingärtner K, Ramaswamy A, Bittinger A, et al. Anatomical basis for pelvic lymphadenectomy in
prostate cancer: results of an autopsy study and implications for the clinic. J Urol 1996 Dec;156(6):
1969-71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8911367
Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation
following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999 May;281(17):1591-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10235151
Aus G, Nordenskjöld K, Robinson D, et al. Prognostic factors and survival in nodepositive (N1)
prostate cancer–a prospective study based on data from a Swedish population-based cohort. Eur
Urol 2003 Jun;43(6):627-31.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12767363
Cheng L, Zincke H, Blute ML, et al. Risk of prostate carcinoma death in patients with lymph node
metastasis. Cancer 2001 Jan;91(1):66-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11148561
Bader P, Burkhard FC, Markwalder R, et al. Is a limited lymph node dissection an adequate staging
procedure for prostate cancer? J Urol 2002 Aug;168(2):514-8;discussion 518.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12131300
Joslyn SA, Konety BR. Impact of extent of lymphadenectomy on survival after radical prostatectomy
for prostate cancer. Urology 2006 Jul;68(1):121-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16806432
Briganti A, Chun FK, Salonia A, et al. Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with
extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006 Nov;50(5):
1006-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16959399
Heidenreich A, Von Knobloch R, Varga Z, et al. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men undergoing
radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP)–an update on >300 cases. J Urol 2004;171:312, abstract
#1183.
Burkhard FC, Schumacher M, Studer UE. The role of lymphadenectomy in prostate cancer. Nat Clin
Pract Urol 2005 Jul;2(7):336-42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16474786
Vallett BS. Radical perineal prostatectomy subsequent to bilateral orchiectomy. Delaware Med J
1944;16:19-20.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
92. 93.
94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102.
103. 104. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. Shelley MD, Kumar S, Wilt T, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of neoadjuvant hormone therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rev
2009 Feb;35(1):9-17.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18926640
McLeod DG, Iversen P, See WA, et al; Casodex Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group. Bicalutamide
150 mg plus standard care vs standard care alone for early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006 Feb;97(2):
247-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16430622
Hautmann RE, Sauter TW, Wenderoth UK. Radical retropubic prostatectomy: morbidity and urinary
continence in 418 consecutive cases. Urology 1994 Feb;43(2 Suppl):47-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8116133
Murphy GP, Mettlin C, Menck H, et al. National patterns of prostate cancer treatment by radical
prostatectomy: results of a survey by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. J
Urol 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 2):1817-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7523727
Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB, et al. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med
2002 Apr;346(15):1138-44.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11948274
Potosky AL, Legler J, Albertsen PC, et al. Health outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for
prostate cancer: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcome Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 Oct;
92(19):1582-92.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11018094
Van Poppel H, Collette L, Kirkali Z, et al, EORTC GU Group. Quality control of radical prostatectomy: a
feasibility study. Eur J Cancer 2001 May;37(7):884-91.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11313177
Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical
retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J Urol 1994 Nov;152(5Pt2):1831-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7523730
Sofer M, Savoie M, Kim SS, et al. Biochemical and pathological predictors of the recurrence of
prostatic adenocarcinoma with seminal vesicle invasion. J Urol 2003 Jan;169(1):153-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12478125
Walsh RM, Thompson IM. Prostate cancer screening and disease management: how screening
may have an unintended effect on survival and mortality-the camel’s nose effect. J Urol 2007
Apr;177(4):1303-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17382719
Alsikafi NF, Brendler CB. Surgical modifications of radical retropubic prostatectomy to decrease
incidence of positive surgical margins. J Urol 1998 Apr;159(4):1281-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9507853
Graefen M. Is the open retropubic radical prostatectomy dead? Eur Urol 2007 Nov;52(5):1281-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764828
Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and
recovery of sexual and urinary function (‘trifecta’). Urology 2005 Nov;66(5 Suppl):83-94.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16194712
Gontero P, Kirby RS. Nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy: techniques and clinical
considerations. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2005;8(2):133-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15711608
Sokoloff MH, Brendler CB. Indications and contraindications for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.
Urol Clin North Am 2001 Aug;28(3):535-43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11590812
Eichelberg C, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, et al. Frozen section for the management of intraoperatively
detected palpable tumor lesions during nerve-sparing scheduled radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2006
Jun;49(6):1011-6; discussion 1016-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16546316
Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Strambi LF, et al. Recovery of spontaneous erectile function after nervesparing radical retropubic prostatectomy with and without early intracavernous injections of
alprostadil: results of a prospective, randomized trial. J Urol 1997 Oct;158(4):1408-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9302132
Nandipati K, Raina R, Agarwal A, et al. Early combination therapy: intracavernosal injections and
sildenafil following radical prostatectomy increases sexual activity and the return of natural erections.
Int J Impot Res 2006 Sep - Oct;18(5):446-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16482200
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
57
109. 110. 111.
Secin FP, Koppie TM, Scardino PT, et al. Bilateral cavernous nerve interposition grafting during
radical retropubic prostatectomy: Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. J Urol 2007
Feb;177(2):664-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17222654
Montorsi F, Brock G, Lee J, et al. Effect of nightly versus on-demand vardenafil on recovery of erectile
function in men following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008 Oct;54(4):
924-31.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18640769
Padma-Nathan H, McCullough AR, Levine LA, et al; Study Group. Randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled study of postoperative nightly sildenafil citrate for the prevention of erectile
dysfunction after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res 2008 Sep-Oct;
20(5):479-86.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18650827
10. TREATMENT: DEFINITIVE RADIATION
THERAPY
10.1
Introduction
There are no randomised studies comparing radical prostatectomy (RP) with either external beam radiation
therapy (EBRT) or brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer. However, the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
consensus set up in 1988 (1) remains available: external irradiation offers the same long-term survival results as
surgery; moreover, EBRT provides a quality of life at least as good as that provided by surgery (2).
Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) is the gold standard and, at the beginning of the
third millennium, intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), an optimised form of 3D-CRT, is gradually gaining
ground in centres of excellence.
In addition to external irradiation, there has been continued and growing interest in transperineal lowdose or high-dose brachytherapy. In localised and locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa), several randomised
phase III trials conducted by radiation therapy scientific societies, such as the Radiation Therapy Oncology
Group (RTOG) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), have established
the indications for the combination of external irradiation and androgen deprivation treatment (ADT).
Whatever the technique used, the choice of treatment – after the appropriate assessment of tumour
extension – must be based on a multidisciplinary approach and should consider the following:
•
2002 and 2009 TNM classification;
•
Gleason score defined on a sufficient number of core biopsies (at least 12);
•
baseline PSA;
•
age of the patient;
•
patient’s co-morbidity, life expectancy and QoL;
•
d’Amico’s prognostic factor classification.
Obtaining a patient’s consent is essential after giving full information regarding diagnosis, the therapeutic
modalities, and morbidity. Additional information on the various aspects of radiotherapy in the treatment of
prostate cancer is available in a newly published extensive overview (3).
10.2Technical aspects: three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity
modulated external beam radiotherapy (IMRT)
Anatomical data, acquired by scanning the patient in a treatment position, are transferred to the 3D treatment
planning system, which visualises the clinical target volume and then adds a (surrounding) safety margin. At
the time of irradiation, a multi-leaf collimator automatically and, in the case of IMRT, continuously, adapts to
the contours of the target volume seen by each beam. Real-time verification of the irradiation field by means
of portal imaging allows for comparison of the treated and simulated fields, and correction of deviations where
displacement is more than 5 mm. Three-dimensional CRT improves local control through dose escalation
without increasing the risk of morbidity.
The use of IMRT is possible with linear accelerators equipped with the latest multileaf collimators
and specific software. Movement of the leaves during the course of the irradiation allows for a more complex
distribution of the dose to be delivered within the treatment field, and provides concave isodose curves, which
are particularly useful as a means to spare the rectum.
58
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
Whatever the techniques and their sophistication, quality assurance plays a major role in the
management of radiotherapy, requiring the involvement of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, radiographers,
radiologists and computer scientists.
10.3
Localised prostate cancer T1-2c N0, M0
10.3.1 T1a-T2a, N0, M0 and Gleason score < 6 and PSA < 10 ng/mL (low-risk group)
Retrospective, non-randomised studies have shown that biochemical disease-free survival (BDFS) is
significantly higher with a radiation dose > 72 Gy compared with < 72 Gy (p = 0.04) (4).
Two randomised trials focused on clinical stages T1-3 N0 M0 paved the way for dose escalation:
•
The MD Anderson study compared 78 Gy with 70 Gy conventional radiotherapy: it included 305 stage
T1-3 patients with a pre-treatment PSA level of more than 10 ng/mL and, with a median follow-up of
8.7 years, showed a significant increase in freedom from biochemical and/or clinical failure for low-risk
patients (p = 0.04) (5).
•
The PROG 95-09 study evaluated 393 T1b-T2b patients, of whom 75% had a Gleason score < 6 and
a PSA < 15 ng/mL. Patients were randomised to receive an initial boost to the prostate alone, using
conformal protons of either 19.8 Gy or 28.8 Gy, and then 50.4 Gy to a larger volume. With a median
follow-up of 5.5 years, there was a significant increase in 5-year freedom from biochemical failure (p
< 0.001) in favour of low-risk patients given a higher dose (79.2 Gy) versus those given a conventional
dose (70.2 Gy) (6).
In daily practice, a minimum dose of > 74 Gy is recommended (7).
10.3.2 T2b or PSA 10-20 ng/mL, or Gleason score 7 (intermediate-risk group)
Many non-randomised studies have shown that dose escalation (range, 76-81 Gy) has a significant impact on
5-year survival without biochemical relapse for patients classified as cT1c-T3 (4,8,9).
•
A Dutch randomised phase III trial comparing 68 Gy with 78 Gy showed a significant increase in
5-year freedom from clinical or biochemical failure for patients in an intermediate-risk group (10).
•
The phase III trial of the French Federation of Cancer Centres compared 70 Gy with 80 Gy in 306
patients with a pelvic lymph node involvement risk of < 10% (Partin) or pN0, with no hormonal therapy
allowed before, during, or after radiotherapy. With a median follow-up of 59 months, a high dose
should provide a better 5-year biological outcome in intermediate-risk patients, especially if the initial
PSA > 15 ng/mL (11).
•
Patients who are reluctant to accept short-term hormonal treatment (12) can receive definitive
radiotherapy alone, provided that a dose escalation up to 78-80 (76-80 Gy) Gy is proposed.
10.3.3 T2c or Gleason score > 7 or PSA > 20 ng/mL (high-risk group)
External irradiation with dose escalation is mandatory since it improves the 5-year BDFS, as shown in several
phase III randomised trials.
•
A Dutch study comparing 68 Gy with 78 Gy showed a 10% increase in the 5-year freedom from
clinical or biochemical failure (p = 0.02) (10).
•
The MRC RT01 study, comparing a dose of 64 Gy with 74 Gy, both with neoadjuvant hormonal
therapy, showed an 11% difference in 5-year BDFS (13).
•
The PROG 95-09 study showed a significant increase in 5-year freedom from biochemical failure
(p < 0.02) in favour of high-risk patients given a higher dose (79.2 Gy) versus those receiving a
conventional dose (70.2 Gy) (10).
•
An MD Anderson study showed a significant increase in freedom from biochemical and/or clinical
failure for high-risk patients (p = 0.004) (5).
•
The EORTC trial 22991, comparing 3D-CRT +/- IMRT with a choice of three levels of dose (70 Gy, 74
Gy or 78 Gy), with or without 6 months of neoadjuvant and concomitant hormonal therapy, was closed
in April 2008 after recruiting 800 patients; its results are awaited (14).
In daily practice, a combination of external irradiation with short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)
is recommended, based on the results of a phase III randomised trial. The trial, which included 206 patients
with a PSA level of at least 10 ng/mL (maximum 40 ng/mL), a Gleason score of at least 7 (range 5-10), or
radiographic evidence of extra-prostatic disease, compared 3D-CRT alone or in combination with 6 months
of ADT. After a median follow-up of 7.6 years, intermediate- or high-risk patients without moderate or
severe co-morbidity, who had been randomised to receive 3D-CRT + ADT, showed a 13% improvement in
overall survival rate (p < 0.001) (12). In contrast, there are data from the EORTC-22961 randomised phase
III trial, comparing 36 months of hormonal treatment + radiotherapy with 6 months of hormonal treatment +
radiotherapy, which showed that increased hormonal treatment improved overall survival in patients with high-
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
59
risk PCa at 5 years (13).
10.3.4 Prophylactic irradiation of pelvic lymph nodes in high-risk localised PCa
Invasion of the pelvic lymph nodes is a poor prognostic factor and mandates systemic medical treatment
because radiotherapy alone is insufficient (14). Prophylactic whole-pelvis irradiation has been abandoned since
randomised trials failed to show that patients benefited from prophylactic irradiation (46-50 Gy) of the pelvic
lymph nodes in high-risk cases. Such studies include the RTOG 77 06 study with 484 T1b-T2 patients (15), the
Standford study with only 91 patients (16), and the GETUG-01 trial, which included 444 T1b-T3 N0 pNx M0
patients (17). Pelvic lymphadenectomy may be needed to improve the selection of patients who might benefit
from pelvic lymph node irradiation and to supplement the use of Partin’s tables (18) and/or the Roach formula
(19). The results of pelvic lymphadenectomy, particularly for young patients, will enable radiation oncologists
to tailor both the planning target volume and the duration of ADT: specifically, no pelvic irradiation for pN0
patients, but pelvic irradiation for pN1 patients with long-term ADT.
10.4
Innovative techniques
10.4.1 Intensity modulated radiotherapy
Intensity modulated radiotherapy enables radiation oncologists to increase radiation doses homogeneously, up
to as much as 86 Gy within the target volume, while respecting the tolerance doses in organs at risk. Certainly,
IMRT is the only safe means of treatment delivery for dose escalation beyond 80 Gy using conventional 2 Gy
fraction sizes, or for dose escalation using hypofractionated radiotherapy, in which there has been renewed
interest. However, both treatment scenarios should be performed only within the confines of a properly
designed clinical trial.
The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has the largest experience with this technique, and its results
have now been updated, reporting on disease control and toxicity in two cohorts of patients.
•
In the first cohort, 561 patients with organ-confined disease were treated with a dose of 81 Gy.
The 8-year actuarial PSA relapse-free survival rates for patients in favourable-, intermediate- and
unfavourable-risk groups were 85%, 76% and 72%, respectively, according to the then-current
American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) definition (21).
•
In the second cohort, 478 patients with organ-confined disease were treated with a dose of 86.4 Gy.
The five-year actuarial PSA relapse-free survival according to the nadir plus 2 ng/mL definition was
98%, 85% and 70% for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively (22).
To date, no randomised trials have been published comparing dose escalation using IMRT and 3D-CRT.
However, several such trials are ongoing (UK NCRI, MD Anderson, Fox Chase, and Ottawa Health Research
Institute), although one (Ottawa) is studying helical tomotherapy (see below), and two (NCRI and MD Anderson)
are studying hypofractionated, dose-escalated radiotherapy.
With dose escalation using IMRT, organ movement becomes a critical issue, in terms of both tumour
control and treatment toxicity. Evolving techniques will therefore combine IMRT with some form of imageguided radiotherapy (IGRT), in which organ movement can be visualised and corrected for in real time, although
the optimum means of achieving this is still unclear (23).
Another evolving technique for the delivery of IMRT is tomotherapy, which uses a linear accelerator
mounted on a ring gantry that rotates as the patient is delivered through the centre of the ring, analogous to
spiral computed tomography (CT) scanning. Preliminary data suggest that this technique is feasible in PCa
treatment (24).
10.4.2 Proton beam and carbon ion beam therapy
In theory, proton beams are an attractive alternative to photon beam radiotherapy for PCa because they
deposit almost all their radiation dose at the end of the particle’s path in tissue (the Bragg peak), in contrast to
photons, which deposit radiation along their path. Additionally, there is a very sharp fall-off for proton beams
beyond their deposition depth, meaning that critical normal tissues beyond this depth could be effectively
spared. In contrast, photon beams continue to deposit energy until they leave the body, including an exit dose.
In practice, however, this has the disadvantage that dose distributions from protons are highly
sensitive to changes in internal anatomy, such as might occur with bladder or rectal filling, and prostate proton
therapy is usually delivered with lateral beams. It is also possible that high linear energy transfer (LET) radiation
therapy using protons or carbon ions offers inherent biological advantages over photons, having more capacity
for DNA damage dose-for-dose.
Only one randomised trial has incorporated proton therapy in one arm: the Loma Linda/Massachusetts
General Hospital trial mentioned above compared standard-dose conformal radiotherapy with dose-escalated
radiotherapy using protons for the boost dose (6). This trial cannot, however, be used as evidence for the
superiority of proton therapy per se, as its use here could be viewed merely as a sophisticated method for dose
60
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
escalation. In order to compare the efficacy of protons versus photons, a randomised trial using equivalent
doses, comparing proton beam therapy with IMRT, would be needed, and such a study is under consideration
by the RTOG.
Two recent planning studies comparing conformal proton therapy with IMRT have yielded conflicting
results; one study suggested that the two are equivalent in terms of rectal dose sparing, but that IMRT is
actually superior in terms of bladder sparing (25); the other study suggested a clearer advantage to protons
(26). Further studies are clearly needed, and in the interim, proton therapy must be regarded as a promising,
but experimental, alternative to photon beam therapy. Theoretically, proton therapy might be associated with a
lower risk of secondary cancers compared with IMRT, because of the lower integral dose of radiation, but there
are no data in patients treated for PCa to support this.
Carbon ions offer similar theoretical advantages as protons, as an alternative to photon beam therapy.
In a phase II study, 175 patients with T1-3, N0-1, M0 PCa were treated with carbon ions in a dose equivalent
to 66 Gy in 20 fractions over 5 weeks (27). Treatment appeared to be well tolerated, with no RTOG grade 3 or 4
bowel or genitourinary toxicity, and an overall four-year BDFR of 88% (26). As with protons, a randomised trial
comparing carbon ions with IMRT and using equivalent doses is required.
10.5
Transperineal brachytherapy
Transperineal brachytherapy is a safe and effective technique that generally requires fewer than 2 days of
hospitalisation. There is consensus on the following eligibility criteria:
•
stage cT1b- T2a N0, M0;
•
a Gleason score < 6 assessed on a sufficient number of random biopsies;
•
an initial PSA level of < 10 ng/mL;
•
< 50% of biopsy cores involved with cancer;
•
a prostate volume of < 50 cm3;
•
an International Prostatic Symptom Score < 12 (IPSS) (28).
Patients with low-risk PCa are the most suitable candidates for low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy. Further
guidelines on the technical aspects of brachytherapy have been published recently, and are strongly
recommended (29).
In 1983, Holm et al. described the transperineal method with endorectal sonography in which the
patient is positioned in a dorsal decubitus gynaecological position (30). Implantation is undertaken under
general anaesthesia or spinal block, and involves a learning curve for the whole team: the surgeon for
delineation of the prostate and needle placement, the physicist for real-time dosimetry, and the radiation
oncologist for source loading. The sonography probe introduced into the rectum is fixed in a stable position.
There are no randomised trials comparing brachytherapy with other curative treatment modalities,
and outcomes are based on unrandomised case series. Results of permanent implants have been reported
from different institutions, with a median follow-up ranging between 36 and 120 months (31). Recurrence-free
survival after 5 and 10 years was reported to range from 71% to 93% and from 65% to 85%, respectively (3239).
A significant correlation has been shown between the implanted dose and recurrence rates (40).
Patients receiving a D90 of > 140 Gy demonstrated a significantly higher biochemical control rate (PSA < 1.0
ng/mL) at 4 years than patients receiving less than 140 Gy (92% vs 68%). There is no benefit from adding
neoadjuvant or adjuvant ADT to LDR brachytherapy (31).
Some patients experience significant urinary complications following implantation, such as urinary
retention (1.5-22%), post-implant transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (up to 8.7%), and incontinence
(0-19%). A small randomised trial has suggested that prophylactic tamsulosin does not reduce the rates of
acute urinary retention, but may improve urinary morbidity (41). This observation requires further study in a
larger number of patients. Chronic urinary morbidity can occur in up to 20% of patients, depending on the
severity of symptoms prior to brachytherapy. Previous TURP for benign prostatic hyperplasia increases the risk
of post-implant incontinence and urinary morbidity.
Brachytherapy-induced rectal morbidity with grade II/III proctitis occurs in 5-21% of patients. Erectile
dysfunction develops in about 40% of patients after 3-5 years. In a recent retrospective analysis of 5,621 men
who had undergone LDR brachytherapy (42), urinary, bowel and erectile morbidity rates were 33.8%, 21% and
16.7%, respectively, with invasive procedure rates of 10.3%, 0.8% and 4%, respectively.
In cases of permanent implants, iodine-125 in granular form is the radio-element of reference, while
palladium-103 may be used for less differentiated tumours with a high doubling time. The dose delivered to the
planning target volume is 160 Gy for iodine-125, and 120 Gy for palladium-103. A Gleason score of 7 remains a
‘grey area’, but patients with a Gleason score of 4 + 3 show no difference in outcome (43).
A small randomised trial has suggested that the use of stranded rather than loose seeds is associated
with better seed retention and less seed migration, and this should be the standard choice (44).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
61
In cases of intermediate- or high-risk localised PCa, brachytherapy in combination with supplemental
external irradiation (45) or neoadjuvant hormonal treatment (46) may be considered.
The optimum dose of supplemental EBRT is unclear. A randomised trial comparing 44 Gy with 20 Gy
of EBRT + palladium-103 brachytherapy closed early, showing no difference in biochemical outcomes (47).
Non-permanent transperineal interstitial prostate brachytherapy using a high-dose rate iridium-192
stepping source and a remote afterloading technique can be applied with a total dose of 12-20 Gy in two to
four fractions combined with fractionated external radiotherapy of 45 Gy (48). Higher doses of supplemental
EBRT than this may best be delivered with IMRT; a report from Memorial Sloan-Kettering indicates that this
approach is safe and feasible (49).
Recent data suggest an equivalent outcome in terms of BDFS compared with high-dose EBRT (HD
EBRT) (50). In a retrospective analysis of modern series (51,52), BDFS rates of 85.8%, 80.3% and 67.8% in
men with low-, intermediate- and high-risk PCa, respectively, are reported after a mean follow-up of 9.43 years.
Quality-of-life changes are similar between high-dose EBRT and high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy
in terms of diarrhoea and insomnia (53). However, the frequency of erectile dysfunction was significantly
increased with HDR brachytherapy (86% vs 34%). A single randomised trial of EBRT versus EBRT + HDR
brachytherapy has been reported (54). A total of 220 patients with organ-confined PCa were randomised to
EBRT alone with a dose of 55 Gy in 20 fractions, or EBRT with a dose of 35.75 Gy in 13 fractions, followed
by HDR brachytherapy with a dose of 17 Gy in two fractions over 24 hours. Compared to EBRT alone, the
combination of EBRT and HDR brachytherapy showed a significant improvement in biochemical relapsefree survival (p = 0.03). There were no differences in the rates of late toxicity. Patients randomised to EBRT +
brachytherapy had a significantly better quality of life as measured by their Functional Assessment of Cancer
Therapy-prostate (FACT-P) score at 12 weeks. However, a very high, uncommon rate of early recurrences
was observed in the EBRT-arm alone, even after 2 years, possibly due to the uncommon fractionation used
(54). There is still a need to compare dose-escalated EBRT + hormone therapy, with the same followed by a
brachytherapy boost, in intermediate- and high-risk patients.
For T1-2 N0 M0 disease, the 5-year biochemical failure rates are similar for permanent seed
implantation, high-dose (> 72 Gy) external radiation, combination seed/external irradiation, and RP, according
to a study of 2,991 patients diagnosed with T1-2 consecutive localised PCa treated between 1990 and 1998 at
the Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center with a minimum of 1-year followup (50).
10.6
Late toxicity
Patients must be informed about the potential late genitourinary or gastrointestinal toxicity that may occur,
as well as the impact of irradiation on erectile function. Late toxicity was analysed using a dose of 70 Gy in
the prospective EORTC randomised trial 22863 (1987-1995) (55), in which 90% of patients were diagnosed
as stage T3-4. A total of 377 patients (91%) out of 415 enrolled were evaluable for long-term toxicity,
graded according to a modified RTOG scale. Eighty-six (22.8%) patients had grade > 2 urinary or intestinal
complications or leg oedema, of which 72 had grade 2 (moderate) toxicity, 10 had grade 3 (severe) toxicity,
and four died due to grade 4 (fatal) toxicity. Although four (1%) late treatment-related deaths occurred, longterm toxicity was limited, with fewer than 5% grade 3 or 4 late complications being reported (Table 17). These
data can be used as a baseline for comparison with irradiation techniques currently in use, such as 3D-CRT or
IMRT.
Table 17: Incidence of late toxicity by RTOG grade (from EORTC trial 22863)
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
No.
18
18
18
18
47
31
14
1
36
6
72
No.
2
0
5
2
9
0
0
1
1
0
10
No.
0
0
4
0
4†
0
0
0
0
0
4
Toxicity
Cystitis
Haematuria
Urinary stricture
Urinary incontinence
Overall GU toxicity
Proctitis
Chronic diarrhoea
Small bowel obstruction
Overall GI toxicity
Leg oedema
Overall toxicity*
%
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
12.4
8.2
3.7
0.2
9.5
1.5
19.0
%
0.5
0
1.3
0.5
2.3
0
0
0.2
0.2
0
2.7
%
0
0
1
0
1†
0
0
0
0
0
1
Any significant toxicity
(> grade 2)
No.
%
20
5.3
18
4.7
27
7.1
20
5.3
60
15.9
31
8.2
14
3.7
2
0.5
37
9.8
6
1.5
86
22.8
GU = genitourinary; GI = gastrointestinal.
62
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
*O
verall toxicity included genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and leg oedema. As most patients had more
than one type of toxicity, the overall toxicity does not result from simple addition.
† Two of the grade 4 patients were irradiated with cobalt-60.
Note: There was no other significant (> grade 2) toxicity among patients irradiated with cobalt-60 (n = 15)
except for two patients with grade 4 genitourinary toxicity (stated above) and only one patient with grade 2
gastrointestinal toxicity.
Radiotherapy affects erectile function to a lesser degree than surgery according to retrospective surveys
of patients (2). A recent meta-analysis has shown that the 1-year rate of probability for maintaining erectile
function was 0.76 after brachytherapy, 0.60 after brachytherapy + external irradiation, 0.55 after external
irradiation, 0.34 after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy, and 0.25 after standard radical prostatectomy.
When studies with more than 2 years of follow-up were selected (i.e. excluding brachytherapy), the
rates became 0.60, 0.52, 0.25, and 0.25, respectively, with a greater spread between the radiation techniques
and surgical approaches (56).
Recent studies have demonstrated a significantly increased risk of developing secondary
malignancies of the rectum and bladder following EBRT (57,58). In a retrospective evaluation of 30,552 and
55,263 men who had undergone either EBRT or RP, the risk of being diagnosed with rectal cancer increased
1.7-fold in comparison with the surgery group (57). Another analysis (58) showed that the relative risk of
developing bladder cancer increased by 2.34-fold compared with a healthy control population. On the other
hand, a re-analysis of the SEER-data with more than 100,000 patients demonstrated a risk of about 0.16% (i.e.
160 cases per 100,000 patients) of radiation-induced malignant tumours (59).
Corresponding data on late toxicity has also been reported by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center group, from its experience in 1571 patients with T1-T3 disease treated with either 3D-CRT or IMRT in
doses of between 66 Gy and 81 Gy, with a median follow-up of 10 years (59). Both acute GI and GU toxicity
appeared to predict for corresponding late toxicity. The overall rates of NCIC-CTC grade 2 or more GI toxicity
was 5% with IMRT, compared with 13% with 3D-CRT. The incidence of grade 2 or more late GU toxicity was
20% in patients treated with 81 Gy, compared with 12% in patients treated with lower doses. The overall
incidence of grade 3 GI toxicity was 1%, and grade 3 GU toxicity was 3%. These data suggest that IMRT can
successfully protect against late GI toxicity, but, interestingly, with dose escalation, GU toxicity may become
the dominant morbidity (60).
10.7
Immediate post-operative external irradiation for pathological tumour stage T3 N0 M0
Extracapsular invasion (pT3) is associated with a risk of local recurrence, which can be as high as 30% (61). In
a multifactorial analysis, the predictors of biochemical relapse are:
•
PSA level (p = 0.005);
•
Gleason score of the surgical specimen (p = 0.002);
•
positive surgical margins (p < 0.001) (62).
Three prospective randomised trials have assessed the role of immediate post-operative radiotherapy.
The EORTC study 22911, with a target sample size of 1005 patients, compared immediate post-operative
radiotherapy (60 Gy) with radiotherapy delayed until local recurrence (70 Gy) in patients classified as pT3
pN0 with risk factors R1 and pT2R1 after retropubic RP. Immediate post-operative radiotherapy proved to be
well tolerated, with a risk of grade 3-4 urinary toxicity of less than 3.5% (63), without significant differences
regarding the rate of incontinence and/or stricture of anastomosis (64). The study concludes that immediate
post-operative radiotherapy after surgery significantly improves 5-year clinical or biological survival: 72.2%
versus 51.8% (p < 0.0001) (65). After re-evaluation by central pathological review, the highest impact (30%)
was seen in patients with positive margins (R1), but there was also a positive effect of 10% after 5 years for
pT3 with negative margins and other risk factors (66,67).
However, the EORTC study has not yet demonstrated improved metastasis-free and cancer-specific
survival in this cohort of patients. The most suitable candidates for immediate radiation therapy might be those
with multifocal positive surgical margins and a Gleason score > 7. The conclusions of the ARO trial 96-02
(n = 385) appear to support those of the EORTC study. After a median follow-up of 54 months, the radiotherapy
group demonstrated a significant improvement in biochemical progression-free survival of 72% versus 54%,
respectively (p = 0.0015). However, of major interest and in contrast to other studies, patients were randomised
after achieving an undetectable PSA after RP (< 0.1 ng/mL) and only pT3-tumours were included. This finding
indicates that adjuvant radiotherapy works even in the setting of an undetectable PSA after RP and additional
risk factors (67).
On the other hand, the SWOG 8794 trial randomised 425 pT3 patients, and the updated results, with a
median follow-up of more than 12 years, showed that adjuvant radiation significantly improved metastasis-free
survival, with a 10-year metastasis-free survival of 71% versus 61% (median: 1.8 years prolongation, p = 0.016)
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
63
and a 10-year overall survival of 74% versus 66% (median: 1.9 years prolongation, p = 0.023) (67,68).
Thus, for patients classified as pT3 pN0 with a high risk of local failure after RP due to positive margins (highest
impact), capsule rupture, and/or invasion of the seminal vesicles, who present with a PSA level of < 0.1 ng/mL,
two options can be offered within the framework of an informed consent:
•
either an immediate radiotherapy to the surgical bed (66) upon recovery of urinary function;
•
or clinical and biological monitoring followed by salvage radiotherapy when the PSA exceeds
0.5 ng/mL (70,71).
Early salvage radiotherapy provides the possibility of cure to patients with an increasing PSA after RP. More
than 60% of patients who are treated before the PSA level rises to more than 0.5 ng/mL will achieve an
undetectable PSA level again (70,71), so providing patients with the chance of about 80% being progressionfree 5 years later (71). A retrospective analysis based on 635 patients undergoing RP from 1982-2004, followed
up through to December 2007, who experienced biochemical and/or local recurrence and received no salvage
treatment [397] or salvage radiotherapy alone [160] within 2 years of biochemical recurrence, has shown that
salvage radiotherapy was associated with a threefold increase in prostate cancer-specific survival relative to
those who received no salvage treatment (p < 0.001). Salvage radiotherapy has also been effective in patients
who have a rapid PSA-doubling time (72).
These two approaches, together with the efficacy of neoadjuvant hormone therapy, are currently being
compared in the UK MRC RADICALS randomised trial. The role of short-term hormone therapy in combination
with radiotherapy is being investigated in the EORTC 22043 randomised trial.
10.8
Locally advanced PCa: T3-4 N0, M0
The incidence of locally advanced PCa has declined as a result of individual or mass screening. Pelvic lymph
node irradiation is optional for N0 patients, but the results of radiotherapy alone are very poor (73,74). Because
of the hormonal dependence of PCa (75), ADT has been combined with external irradiation with the aim of:
•
reducing the risk of distant metastases by potentially sterilising micrometastases already present at
the moment of diagnosis;
•
decreasing the risk of non-sterilisation and/or local recurrence as a source of secondary metastases
(74) through the effect of radiation-induced apoptosis (76,77).
Numerous randomised trials have confirmed the value of long-term administration.
10.8.1 Neoadjuvant and concomitant hormonal therapy
The RTOG study 86-10 included 471 patients with bulky (5 x 5 cm) tumours T2-4N0-X M0. Androgen
deprivation therapy was administered 2 months before irradiation and during irradiation, or in the case of
relapse in the control arm. Thirty-two per cent of patients were diagnosed as T2, 70% as T3-4, and 91% as N0.
The hormone treatment consisted of oral eulexine, 250 mg three times daily, and goserelin acetate (Zoladex),
3.6 mg every 4 weeks by subcutaneous injection. The pelvic target volume received 45 Gy, and the prostatic
target volume received 20-25 Gy. The 10-year overall survival estimates were 43% for ADT + irradiation versus
34% for hormonal treatment, though the difference was not significant (p = 0.12). There was a significant
improvement in the 10-year disease-specific mortality (23% vs 36%; p = 0.01), disease-free survival (11% vs
3%; p < 0.0001) and in biochemical failure (65% versus 80%; p < 0.0001), with the addition of ADT having no
statistical impact on the risk of fatal cardiac events (78).
10.8.2 Concomitant and long-term adjuvant hormonal therapy
The EORTC study 22863 recruited 415 patients diagnosed with T1-2 grade 3 WHO (World Health Organization)
or T3-4 N0 M0 and any histological grade, and compared radiotherapy + adjuvant ADT, with radiotherapy
alone. The use of ADT was allowed in cases of relapse. A total of 82% of patients was diagnosed as T3, 10%
as T4, and 89% as N0.
Hormonal treatment consisted of oral cyproterone acetate (CPA), 50 mg three times daily for 1 month,
beginning 1 week before the start of radiotherapy, and goserelin acetate (Zoladex), 3.6 mg subcutaneously
every 4 weeks for 3 years, starting on the first day of radiotherapy. The pelvic target volume received was 50
Gy, and the prostatic target volume was 20 Gy. With a median follow-up of 66 months, combination therapy
compared with radiotherapy alone yielded significantly better survival (78% vs 62%, p = 0.001) (79). At a
median follow-up of 9.1 years, the 10-year overall survival remained significantly higher – 58.1% vs 39.8%
(p < 0.0001) – as did clinical progression-free survival – 47.7% vs 22.7% (p < 0.0001). The 10-year cumulative
incidence of PCa mortality was 11.1% versus 31% (p < 0.0001), and the 10-year cumulative incidence of
cardiovascular mortality was 11.1% versus 8.2% (p = 0.75) (80).
64
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
10.8.3 Long-term adjuvant hormonal therapy
The RTOG study 85-31 recruited 977 patients diagnosed with T3-4 N0-1 M0, or pT3 after RP. Androgen
deprivation therapy was begun in the last week of irradiation and continued up to relapse (Group I) or was
started at recurrence (Group II). A total of 15% of patients in Group I and 29% in Group II had undergone RP,
while 14% of patients in Group I and 26% in Group II were pN1.
Goserelin acetate, 3.6 mg subcutaneously, was administered every 4 weeks. The pelvis was irradiated
with 45 Gy, while the prostatic bed received 20-25 Gy. Patients diagnosed with stage pT3 received 60-65 Gy.
With a median follow-up time of 7.6 years for all patients, the 10-year overall survival was significantly greater
for the adjuvant arm, at 49% versus 39% (p = 0.002) (81).
The results are awaited from another long-term comparison study – The National Cancer Institute
(NCI) of Canada/Medical Research Council intergroup PR3/PR07 study – in which patients diagnosed with
stage cT3-4 N0 M0 have been treated with complete androgen blockade (CAB) (goserelin acetate 3.6 mg
subcutaneously every 4 weeks and flutamide 750 mg/day) alone versus CAB + radiation 65-69 Gy (82,83).
The SPCG-7/SFUO-3 randomised study (84) compared hormonal treatment alone (i.e. 3 months
of CAB followed by continuous flutamide treatment (n = 439 patients) with the same treatment combined
with radiotherapy [436 patients]. After a median follow-up of 7.6 years, the 10-year cumulative incidence for
prostate cancer-specific mortality was, respectively, 23.9% and 11.9% (95% CI: 4.9-19.1), and the 10-year
cumulative incidence for overall mortality was 39.4% in the hormonal treatment-only group, and 29.6% in the
hormonal + radiotherapy group (95% CI: 0.8-18%).
10.8.4 Neoadjuvant, concomitant and long-term adjuvant hormonal therapy
The RTOG 92-02 trial closed in 1995 after accruing 1,554 patients. Statistically significant improvements
were observed in actuarial biochemical freedom from disease control, distant metastatic failure, local control,
and disease-free survival in patients receiving long-term ADT (before, during, and 2 years after radiotherapy),
compared with short-term androgen deprivation (2 months before and during radiotherapy). With a median
follow-up of 11.27 years of all survival patients, the long-term ADT arm showed significant improvement over
the short-term ADT arm in all efficacy endpoints, except 10-year overall survival, which was 51.6% versus
53.9% (p = 0.36), respectively. In a subset of patients that was not part of the original study design, with
Gleason score 8-10 tumours, the long-term ADT arm showed significantly better overall survival after 10 years
than the short-term ADT arm, with 45% versus 32% (p = 0.006) (85).
10.8.5 Short-term or long-term adjuvant hormonal treatment
Following the EORTC trial 22863, the EORTC equivalence trial 22961 was set up to test whether similar survival
could be achieved in patients who underwent irradiation (to 70 Gy) and 6 months of combined ADT without
further ADT, i.e. short-term ADT arm, compared with patients with 2.5 years of further treatment with luteinising
hormone-releasing hormone analogue (LHRHa), i.e. long-term ADT arm. Eligible patients had T1c-2b N1-2 or
pN1-2, or T2c-4 N0-2 (UICC 1992) M0 PCa with PSA < 150 ng/mL.
Non-inferior survival was defined as a mortality hazard ratio (HR) = 1.35 for short-term ADT versus
long-term ADT. A total of 970 patients were randomised. With a 5.2-year median follow-up, the 5-year overall
survival rate was 85.3% on long-term ADT, and 80.6% on short-term ADT (HR = 1.43; 96.4% CI; 1.04-1.98),
and failed to prove non-inferiority (86).
10.8.6 Dose escalation with hormonal therapy
For bulky locally advanced PCa, there might be a role for dose escalation as suggested by the excellent results
of a retrospective series by the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center devoted to 296 patients: 130 cT3a
N0-X M0 and 166 cT3bN0-X M0. The prescribed doses to the prostate gland ranged from 66 Gy to 86.4 Gy;
95 patients received IMRT with dose escalation beyond 81 Gy. Androgen deprivation therapy was given for 3
months prior to radiotherapy to 189 patients (64%), and was continued during the course of radiotherapy for
patients with high-grade disease. With a median follow-up of 8 years, the 5- and 10-year overall survival and
cause-specific survival were, respectively, 91% and 65%, and 95% and 83% (87).
10.9
Very high-risk PCa: c or pN1, M0
Patients with a pelvic lymph node involvement lower than the iliac regional nodes, younger than 80 years old,
with a WHO performance status 0-1, and no severe co-morbidity may be candidates for EBRT plus immediate
long-term hormonal manipulation. The RTOG 85-31 randomised phase III trial has shown, with a median
follow-up of 6.5 years, that 95 patients out of the 173 pN1 patients who received pelvic radiotherapy with
immediate hormonal therapy had better 5- and 9-year progression-free survival (PSA < 1.5 ng/mL), with 54%
and 10% respectively versus 33% and 4% with radiation alone and hormonal manipulation instituted at the
time of relapse (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed this combination as having a statistically significant
impact on overall survival, disease-specific failure, metastatic failure and biochemical control (88).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
65
10.10 Summary of definitive radiation therapy
In localised prostate cancer T1c-T2c N0 M0, 3D-CRT with or without IMRT is recommended
even for young patients who refuse surgical intervention. There is fairly strong evidence that low-,
intermediate- and high-risk patients benefit from dose escalation
For patients in the high-risk group, short-term ADT prior to and during radiotherapy results in
increased overall survival, but three years of adjuvant ADT are better according to the results of
EORTC 22961
Transperineal interstitial brachytherapy with permanent implants is an option for patients with cT1T2a, Gleason score < 7 (or 3 + 4), PSA < 10 ng/mL, prostate volume < 50 mL, without a previous
TURP and with a good IPSS
Immediate post-operative external irradiation after RP for patients with pathological tumour stage T3
N0 M0 improves overall survival, biochemical and clinical disease-free survival with the highest impact
in cases of positive margins (R1)
An alternative option is to give radiation at the time of biochemical failure, but before PSA rises above
0.5 ng/mL
In locally advanced prostate cancer T3-4 N0 M0, overall survival is improved by concomitant and
adjuvant hormonal therapy for a total duration of 3 years, with external beam irradiation for patients
with a WHO 0-2 performance status.
For a subset of patients with T2c-T3 N0-x and a Gleason score of 2-6, short-term ADT before and
during radiotherapy may favourably influence overall survival
In very high-risk prostate cancer, c-pN1 M0 with no severe co-morbidity, pelvic external irradiation
and immediate long-term adjuvant hormonal treatment improve overall survival, disease-specific
failure, metastatic failure and biochemical control
LE
2
2a
2b
1
3
1
1b
2b
10.11 References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
66
Consensus statement: the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. National Institutes of
Health Consensus Development Panel (no authors listed). NCI Monogr 1988;(7):3-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3050539
Fowler FJ, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, et al. Outcomes of external beam radiation therapy for prostate
cancer: a study of Medicare beneficiaries in three surveillance epidemiology and end results areas.
J Clin Oncol 1996 Aug;14(8):2258-65.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8708715
Nilsson S, Norlen BJ, Widmarks A. A systematic overview of radiation therapy effects in prostate
cancer. Acta Oncol 2004;43(4):316-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15303499
Kupelian P, Kuban D, Thames H, et al. Improved biochemical relapse-free survival with increased
external radiation doses in patients with localized prostate cancer: the combined experience of nine
institutions in patients treated in 1994 and 1995. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005 Feb;61(2):415-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15667961
Kuban DA, Tucker SL, Dong L, et al. Long term results of the MD Anderson randomized doseescalation trial for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008 Jan;70(1):67-74.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17765406
Zietman AL, DeSilvio M, Slater JD, et al. Comparison of conventional-dose vs high-dose conformal
radiation therapy in clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. A randomized controlled trial.
JAMA 2005 Sep;294(10):1233-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16160131
Viani GA, Stefano EJ, Afonso SL. Higher-than-conventional radiation doses in localized prostate
cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
2009 Aug;74(5):1405-18.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19616743
Leibel SA, Zelefsky MJ, Kutcher GJ, et al. The biological basis and clinical application of three
dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy in carcinoma of the prostate. Semin Oncol
1994 Oct;21(5):580-97.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7939749
Zelefsky MJ, Leibel SA, Gaudin PB, et al. Dose escalation with three-dimensional conformal radiation
therapy affects the outcome in prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998 Jun;41(3);491-500.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635694
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Peeters ST, Heemsbergen WD, Koper PCM, et al. Dose-response in radiotherapy for localized
prostate cancer: results of the Dutch multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing 68 Gy of
radiotherapy with 78 Gy. J Clin Oncol 2006 May;24(13):1990-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16648499
Beckendorf V, Guerif S, Le Prise E, et al. The GETUG 70 Gy vs 80 Gy randomized trial for localized
prostate cancer: feasibility and acute toxicity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004 Nov;60(4):1056-65.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15519775
D’Amico A, Renshaw AA, Loffredo M, et al. Androgen suppression and radiation vs radiation alone for
prostate cancer; a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2008 Jan;299(3):289-95.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18212313
Dearnaley DP, Sydes MR, Graham JD, et al; RT01 collaborators. Escalated-dose versus standarddose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomized
controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2007 Jun;8(6):475-87.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17482880
Bolla M, de Reijke TM, Van Tienhoven G, et al; EORTC Radiation Oncology Group and Genito-Urinary
Tract Cancer Group. Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer. N Engl J
Med. 2009 Jun 11;360(24):2516-27.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19516032
Leibel SA, Fuks Z, Zelefsky MJ, et al. The effects of local and regional treatments on the metastatic
outcome in prostatic carcinoma with pelvic lymph node involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
1994 Jan;28(1):7-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8270461
Asbell SO, Krall JM, Pilepich MV, et al. Elective irradiation in stage A2, B carcinoma of the prostate:
analysis of RTOG 77 06. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys 1988 Dec;15(6):1307-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3058656
Spaas PG, Bagshaw MA, Cox RS. The value of extended field irradiation in surgically staged
carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1988;15:133 (abstract 36).
Pommier P, Chabaud S, Lagrange JL, et al. Is there a role for pelvic irradiation in localized prostate
adenocarcinoma? Preliminary results of GETUG-01. J Clin Oncol 2007 Dec;25(34):5366-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18048817
Partin AW, Kattan MW, Subong EN, et al. Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage and
Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update.
JAMA 1997 May;277(18):1445-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9145716
Roach M, Marquez C, Yuo H, et al. Predicting the risk of lymph node involvement using the pretreatment prostate specific antigen and Gleason score in men with clinically localized prostate cancer.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1993 Jan;28(1):33-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7505775
Zelefsky MJ, Chan H, Hunt M, et al. Long-term outcome of high dose intensity modulated radiation
therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2006 Oct;176(4 PT 1):1415-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16952647
Cahlon O, Zelefsky MJ, Shippy A, et al. Ultra-high dose (86.4 Gy) IMRT for localized prostate cancer:
toxicity and biochemical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008 Jun;71(2):330-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18164858
Ling CC, Yorke E, Fuks Z. From IMRT to IGRT: frontierland or neverland? Radiother Oncol 2006
Feb;78(2):119-22.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16413622
Keiler L, Dobbins D, Kulasekere R, et al. Tomotherapy for prostate adenocarcinoma: a report on acute
toxicity. Radiother Oncol 2007 Aug;84(2):171-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17692975
Trofimov A, Nguyen PL, Coen JJ, et al. Radiotherapy treatment of early-stage prostate cancer with
IMRT and protons: a treatment planning comparison. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007 Oct;69(2):
444-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17513063
Vargas C, Fryer A, Mahajan C, et al. Dose-volume comparison of proton therapy and intensitymodulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008 Mar;70(3):744-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17904306
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
67
27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38. 39.
40. 41.
42.
43.
68
Ishikawa H, Tsuji H, Kamada T, et al; Working Group for Genitourinary Tumors. Carbon ion
radiation therapy for prostate cancer: results of a prospective phase II study. Radiother Oncol 2006
Oct;81(1):57-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16971008
Ash D, Flynn A, Batterman J, et al; ESTRA/EAU Urological Brachytherapy Group; EORTC
Radiotherapy Group. ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on permanent seed implantation for
localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000 Dec;57(3):315-21.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11104892
Salembier C, Lavagnini P, Nickers P, et al; GEC ESTRO PROBATE Group. Tumour and target volumes
in permanent prostate brachytherapy: a supplement to the ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on
prostate brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol 2007 Apr;83(1):3-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17321620
Holm HH, Juul N, Pedersen JF, et al. Transperineal seed implantation in prostatic cancer guided by
transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol 1983 Aug;130(2):283-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6876274
Machtens S, Baumann R, Hagemann J, et al. Long-term results of interstitial brachytherapy (LDRbrachytherapy) in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer. World J Urol 2006 Aug;24(3):289-95.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16645877
Grimm PD, Blasko JC, Sylvester JE, et al. 10-year biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) control of
prostate cancer with (125)I brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Biol Phys 2001 Sep;51(1):31-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11516848
Potters L, Klein EA, Kattan MW, et al. Monotherapy for stage T1-T2 prostate cancer: radical
prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or permanent seed implantation. Radiother Oncol
2004;71(1):29-33.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15066293
Sylvester JE, Blasko JC, Grimm R, et al. Fifteen year follow-up of the first cohort of localized prostate
cancer patients treated with brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 2004 Apr;22(14S):4567.
http://meeting.jco.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/14_suppl/4567
Potters L, Morgenstern C, Calugaru E, et al. 12-year outcomes following permanent prostate
brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2005 May;173(5):1562-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15821486
Stone NN, Stock RG, Unger P. Intermediate term biochemical-free progression and local control
following 125iodine brachytherapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2005 Mar;173(3):803-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15711273
Zelefsky MJ, Kuban DA, Levy LB, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of long-term outcome for stages
T1-T2 prostate cancer treated with permanent seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007
Feb;67(2):327-33.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17084558
Lawton CA, DeSilvio M, Lee WR, et al. Results of a phase II trial of transrectal ultrasoundguided permanent radioactive implantation of the prostate for definitive management of localized
adenocarcinoma of the prostate (RTOG 98-05). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007 Jan;67(1):39-47.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17084551
Potters L, Morgenstern C, Calugaru E, et al. 12-year outcomes following permanent prostate
brachytherapy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2008 May;179(5Suppl.):
S20-S24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18405743
Stock RG, Stone NN. Importance of post-implant dosimetry in permanent brachytherapy. Eur Urol
2002 Apr;41(4):434-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12074816
Elshaikh MA, Ulchaker JC, Reddy CA, et al. Prophylactic tamsulosin (Flomax) in patients undergoing
prostate 125I brachytherapy for prostate carcinoma: final report of a double-blind placebo-controlled
randomized study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005 May;62(1):164-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15850917
Chen AB, D’Amico AV, Neville BA, et al. Patient and treatment factors associated with complications
after prostate brachytherapy. J Clin Oncol 2006 Nov;24(33):5298-304.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17114664
Merrick GS, Butler WM, Galbreath RW, et al. Biochemical outcome for hormone naive patients with
Gleason score 3+4 versus 4+3 prostate cancer undergoing permanent prostate brachytherapy.
Urology 2002 Jul;60(1):98-103.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12100932
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
Reed DR, Wallner KE, Merrick GS, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of stranded vs. loose
125I seeds for prostate brachytherapy. Brachytherapy 2007 Apr;6(2):129-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17434106
Potters L, Cha C, Ashley R, et al. Is pelvic radiation necessary in patients undergoing prostate
brachytherapy? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1998;42:300 (abstract 2146).
Lee LN, Stock RG, Stone NN. Role of hormonal therapy in the management of intermediate- to highrisk prostate cancer treated with permanent radioactive seed implantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 2002 Feb;52(2):444-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11872291
Wallner K, Merrick G, True L, et al. 20 Gy versus 44 Gy supplemental beam radiation with Pd-103
prostate brachytherapy: preliminary biochemical outcomes from a prospective randomized multicenter trial. Radiother Oncol 2005 Jun;75(3):307-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16086912
Galalae RM, Kovacs G, Schultze J, et al. Long term outcome after elective irradiation on the pelvic
lymphatics and local dose escalation using high dose rate brachytherapy for locally advanced prostate
cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002 Jan;52(1):81-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11777625
Zelefsky MJ, Nedelka MA, Arican ZL, et al. Combined brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy
for localized prostate cancer: reduced morbidity with an intraoperative brachytherapy planning
technique and supplemental intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Brachytherapy 2008 Jan-Mar;
7(1):1-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18299108
Kupelian PA, Potters L, Ciezki JP, et al. Radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy < 72 Gy,
external radiotherapy > or = 72 Gy, permanent seed implantation or combined seeds/external beam
radiotherapy for stage T1-2 prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004 Jan;58(1):25-33.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14697417
Sylvester JE, Grimm PD, Blasko JC, et al. 15-year biochemical relapse free survival in clinical stage
T1-T3 prostate cancer following combined external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy; Seattle
experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007 Jan;67(1):57-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17084544
Phan TP, Syed AM, Puthawala A, et al. High dose rate brachytherapy as a boost for the treatment of
localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2007 Jan;177(1):123-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162020
Vordermark D, Wulf J, Markert K, et al. 3-D conformal treatment of prostate cancer to 74 Gy vs high
dose rate brachytherapy boost: a cross-sectional quality of life survey. Acta Oncol 2006;45(6):708-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16938814
Hoskin PJ, Motohashi K, Bownes P, et al. High dose rate brachytherapy in combination with external
beam radiotherapy in the radical treatment of prostate cancer: initial results of a randomised phase
three trial. Radiother Oncol 2007 Aug;84(2):114-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17531335
Ataman F, Zurlo A, Artignan X, et al. Late toxicity following conventional radiotherapy for prostate
cancer: analysis of the EORTC trial 22863. Eur J Cancer 2004 Jul;40(11):1674-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15251156
Robinson JW, Moritz S, Fung T. Meta-analysis of rates of erectile function after treatment of localized
prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002 Nov;54(4):1063-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12419432
Baxter NN, Trepper JE, Durham SB, et al. Increased risk of rectal cancer after prostate radiation: a
population-based study. Gastroenterology 2005 Apr;128(4):819-24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825064
Liauw SL, Sylvester JE, Morris CG, et al. Second malignancies after prostate brachytherapy: incidence
of bladder and colorectal cancers in patients with 15 years of potential follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 2006 Nov;66(3):669-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16887293
Abdel-Wahab M, Reis IM, Hamilton K. Second primary cancer after radiotherapy for prostate cancer–a
SEER analysis of brachytherapy versus external beam radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008
Sep;71(1):58-68.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18374503
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
69
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.
75.
70
Zelefsky MJ, Levin EJ, Hunt M, et al. Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after threedimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate
cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008 Mar;70(4):1124-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18313526
Hanks GE. External-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer: patterns of care
studies in the United States. NCI Monogr 1988;(7):75-84.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3050542
Kupelian PA, Katcher J, Levin HS, et al. Staging T1-2 prostate cancer: a multivariate analysis of
factors affecting biochemical and clinical failures after radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol
Phys 1997 Mar;37(5):1043-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9169811
Bolla M, van Poppel H, Van Cangh PJ. et al. Acute and late toxicity of post operative external
irradiation in pT3N0 prostate cancer patients treated within EORTC trial 22911. Int J Rad Oncol Biol
Phys 2002;54(Suppl.2):S62 (abstract 103).
van Cangh PJ, Richard F, Lorge F, et al. Adjuvant therapy does not cause urinary incontinence after
radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective randomized study. J Urol 1998 Jan;159(1):164-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9400462
Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L, et al; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial (EORTC trial
22911). Lancet 2005 Aug;366(9485):572-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16099293
Van der Kwast TH, Bolla M, Van Poppel H, et al; EORTC 22911. Identification of patients with prostate
cancer who benefit from immediate postoperative radiotherapy: EORTC 22911. J Clin Oncol 2007 Sep
20;25(27):4178-86.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17878474
Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U, et al, Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical
prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative
undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol 2009 Jun 20;27(18):
2924-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19433689
Swanson GP, Thompson IM, Tangen C, et al. Update of SWOG 8794: adjuvant radiotherapy for pT3
prostate cancer improves metastasis free survival. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72:S31.
Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate
cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a
randomized clinical trial. J Urol 2009 Mar;181(3):956-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19167731
Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Kattan MW, et al. Predicting the outcome of salvage radiation therapy
for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2007 May;25:2035-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17513807
Wiegel T, Lohm G, Bottke D, et al. Achieving an undetectable PSA after radiotherapy for biochemical
progression after radical prostatectomy is an independent predictor of biochemical outcome–results
of a retrospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009 Mar;73(4):1009-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18963539
Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ, et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy
vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2008 Jun;
299:2760-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18560003
Bagshaw MA, Cox RS, Ray GR. Status of radiation treatment of prostate cancer at Standford
University. NCI Monogr 1988;(7):47-60.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3173503
Leibel SA, Fuks Z, Zelefsky MJ, et al. The effects of local and regional treatments on the metastatic
outcome in prostatic carcinoma with pelvic lymph node involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
1994 Jan;28(1):7-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8270461
Huggins C, Hodges CV. Studies on prostate cancer I. The effects of castration, of estrogen and of
androgen injection on serum phosphatases in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 2002
Jul;168(1):9-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12050481
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
76.
77.
78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88.
Zietman AL, Prince EA, Nakfoor BM, et al. Androgen deprivation and radiation therapy: sequencing
studies using the Shionogi in vivo tumour system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997 Jul;38(5):1067-70.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9276373
Joon DL, Hasegawa M, Sikes C, et al. Supraadditive apoptotic response of R3327-G rat prostate
tumours to androgen ablation and radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997 Jul;38(5):1071-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9276374
Roach M, Bae K, Speight J, et al. Short-term neodajuvant androgen deprivation therapy and externalbeam radiotherapy for localy advanced prostate cancer: long term results of RTOG 8610. J Clin Oncol
2008 Feb;26(4):585-91.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18172188
Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al. Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and
external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III
randomized trial. Lancet 2002 Jul;360(9327):103-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126818
Bolla M, Collette L, Van Tienhoven G, et al. Ten year results of long term adjuvant androgen
deprivation with goserelin in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy;
a phase III EORTC study. Int Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72(1 Suppl 1):S30-S31.
Pilepich MV, Winter K, Lawton CA, Krisch RE, Wolkov HB, Movsas B, Hug EB, Asbell SO, Grignon D.
Androgen suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy in prostate carcinoma--long-term results of
phase III RTOG 85-31.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15817329
Warde P, Intergroup (NCIC CTG, CUOG, ECOG, CALGB, SWOG). Phase III randomized trial
comparing total androgen blockade versus total androgen blockade plus pelvic irradiation in clinical
stage T3-4, N0, M0 adenocarcinoma of the prostate. National Cancer Institute of Canada, Clinical
Trials Group, 1995.
https://www.swogstat.org/ROS/ROSBooks/Spring%202002/Intergroup/NCIC/PR3-2001.pdf
Mason M, Warde P, Sydes M, et al; The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group
PR3/; Medical Research Council PR07 Trial Management Group. Defining the need for local therapy
in locally advanced prostate cancer: an appraisal of the MRC PR07 study. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)
2005 Jun;17(4):217-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15997913
Widmark A, Klepp O, Solberg A, et al for the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study, the Swedish
Association for Urological Oncology. Endocrine treatment, with or without radiotherapy, in locally
advanced prostate cancer (SPCG-7/SFUO-3): an open randomized phase III trial. Lancet 2008
Jan;373(9660):301-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19091394
Horwitz EM, Bae K, Hanks GE, et al. Ten-year follow-up of radiation therapy oncology group
protocol 92-02: a phase III trial of the duration of elective androgen deprivation in locally
advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008 May 20;26(15):2497-504.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18413638
Bolla M, de Reijke TM, Van Tienhoven G, et al; EORTC Radiation Oncology Group and Genito-Urinary
Tract Cancer Group. Duration of androgen suppression in the treatment of prostate cancer. N Engl J
Med 2009 Jun;360(24):2516-27.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19516032
Zelefsky MJ, Yamada Y, Kollmeier MA, et al. Long term outcome following three-dimensional
conformal/intensity modulated external-beam radiotherapy for clinical stage T3 prostate cancer. Eur
Urol 2008 Jun;53(6):1172-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18222596
Lawton CA, Winter K, Grignon D, et al. Androgen suppression plus radiation versus radiation alone for
patients with D1/pathologic node-positive adenocarcinoma of the prostate: updated results based on
a national prospective randomized trial, RTOG 85-31. J Clin Oncol 2005 Feb;23(4):800-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15681524
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
71
11. EXPERIMENTAL LOCAL TREATMENT
OF PROSTATE CANCER
11.1
Background
Besides radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation and/or brachytherapy, cryosurgical ablation of the
prostate (CSAP) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) have emerged as alternative therapeutic options
in patients with clinically localised PCa (1-4).
Whereas HIFU is still considered to be an experimental treatment, CSAP has been recognised as a
true therapeutic alternative according to the guidelines of the American Urological Association. Both HIFU and
CSAP have been developed as minimally invasive procedures, which have potentially the same therapeutic
efficacy as established surgical and non-surgical options with reduced therapy-associated morbidity.
11.2
Cryosurgery of the prostate (CSAP)
Cryosurgery uses freezing techniques to induce cell death by:
•
dehydration resulting in protein denaturation;
•
direct rupture of cellular membranes by ice crystals;
•
vascular stasis and microthrombi, resulting in stagnation of the microcirculation with consecutive
ischaemia;
•
apoptosis (1-4).
Freezing of the prostate is ensured by placement of 12 to 15 17G-cryoneedles under transrectal ultrasound
(TRUS) guidance, placement of thermosensors at the level of the external sphincter and the bladder neck,
and insertion of a urethral warmer. Two freeze-thaw cycles are used under TRUS guidance, resulting in a
temperature of -40°C in the mid-gland and at the neurovascular bundle.
11.2.1 Indication for CSAP
Patients who are ideal candidates for CSAP are those who have organ-confined PCa and those identified as
having minimal tumour extension beyond the prostate (1-3). The prostate should be < 40 mL in size. Prostate
glands > 40mL should be hormonally downsized in order to avoid any technical difficulty in placing cryoprobes
under the pubic arch. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) serum levels should be < 20 ng/mL, and the biopsy
Gleason score should be < 7. It is important that patients with a life expectancy > 10 years should be fully
informed that there are no data, or only minimal data, on the long-term outcome for cancer control at 10 and
15 years.
11.2.2 Results of modern cryosurgery for PCa
When comparing treatment modalities, it is important to bear in mind that, in modern RP series of patients
with clinically organ-confined PCa, there is a very low risk (2.4%) of dying from PCa at 10 years after surgery
(5). Therapeutic results have improved over time with enhanced techniques, such as gas-driven probes and
transperineal probe placement, as used in third-generation cryosurgery (6-11).
An objective assessment of PSA outcome is not easily performed because some institutions use
PSA values < 0.1 ng/mL as an indicator of therapeutic success, while others use the American Society of
Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) criteria, which requires three consecutive increases in PSA level
to document relapsing disease.
With regard to second-generation CSAP, if a PSA nadir < 0.5 ng/mL is used, biochemical disease-free
survival (BDFR) at 5 years is 60% and 36% for low-risk and high-risk patients, respectively (6,7).
Long et al. (6) performed a retrospective analysis of the multicentre, pooled, CSAP results of 975
patients stratified into three risk groups. Using PSA thresholds of 1.0 ng/mL and < 0.5 ng/mL at a mean followup of 24 months, the 5-year actuarial BDFR rate was:
•
76% and 60%, respectively, for the low-risk group;
•
71% and 45%, respectively, for the intermediate-risk group;
•
61% and 36%, respectively, for the high-risk group.
However, according to a recent meta-analysis of 566 cryosurgery-related publications, there were no
controlled trials, no survival data and no validated biochemical surrogate end-points available for analysis (12).
Cryosurgery showed a progression-free survival (PFS) of 36-92% (projected 1- to 7-year data), depending
on risk groups and the definition of failure. Negative biopsies were seen in 72-87%, but no biopsy data were
available for the currently used third-generation cryotherapy machines.
With regard to third-generation cryosurgery, clinical follow-up is short, with a 12-month PSA follow-up
carried out in only 110/176 (63%) of patients (6-11). Of these, 80 (73%) patients still had a PSA nadir < 0.4 ng/
72
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
mL, while 42/65 (64.6%) low-risk patients remained free from biochemical progression using the 0.4 ng/mL
cut-off.
A longer follow-up was reported by Bahn et al. (9), who analysed the therapeutic results of 590
patients undergoing CSAP for clinically localised and locally advanced PCa. At a PSA cut-off level of < 0.5 ng/
mL, the 7-year BDFR for low-, medium- and high-risk groups was 61%, 68% and 61%, respectively.
Nerve-sparing cryosurgery, as reported recently (13), must still be considered an experimental
therapeutic option. Nerve-sparing surgery was performed in nine patients with unilateral PCa confirmed on
repeated biopsies; CSAP was carried out on the side of the positive biopsy, while the negative biopsy side was
spared from freezing.
11.2.3 Complications of CSAP for primary treatment of PCa
Erectile dysfunction occurs in about 80% of patients and remains a consistent complication of the CSAP
procedure, independent of the generation of the system used. The complication rates described with the third
generation of cryosurgery include tissue sloughing in about 3%, incontinence in 4.4%, pelvic pain in 1.4%
and urinary retention in about 2% (6-11). The development of fistula is usually rare, being less than 0.2% in
modern series. About 5% of all patients require transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for subvesical
obstruction.
Quality of life and sexuality following CSAP have been investigated in a clinical phase II trial
recruiting 75 men (14). Quality-of-life analysis by the prostate-specific FACT-P questionnaire revealed that
most subscales had returned to pre-treatment levels by 12 months after CSAP. Furthermore, no significant
changes were determined when comparing data at 36 months with data obtained at 12 months. With regard to
sexuality, 37% of men were able to have intercourse at 3 years after CSAP.
In a recent, prospective, randomised clinical trial, 244 men with newly diagnosed organ-confined PCa
were randomised to receive either external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) or to undergo CSAP (15). After a
follow-up of 3 years, sexual function was significantly less impaired following EBRT.
11.2.4 Summary of CSAP
•
•
•
11.3
atients with low-risk PCa (PSA < 10 ng/mL, < T2a, Gleason score < 6) or intermediate-risk PCa
P
(PSA > 10 ng/mL, or Gleason score > 7, or stage > 2b) represent potential candidates for CSAP.
Prostate size should be < 40 mL at the time of therapy.
Long-term results are lacking, while 5-year BDFR rates are inferior to those achieved by RP in lowrisk patients. Patients must be informed accordingly.
HIFU of the prostate
High-intensity focused ultrasound consists of focused ultrasound waves emitted from a transducer, which
cause tissue damage by mechanical and thermal effects as well as by cavitation (16). The goal of HIFU is to
heat malignant tissues above 65°C so that they are destroyed by coagulative necrosis.
High-intensity focused ultrasound is performed under general or spinal anaesthesia, with the patient
lying in the lateral position. The procedure is time-consuming, with about 10 g prostate tissue treated per hour.
In a recent review, 150 papers related to HIFU were identified and evaluated with regard to various oncological
and functional outcome parameters (12). No controlled trial was available for analysis, and no survival data
were presented. No validated biochemical, surrogate end-point was available for HIFU therapy.
11.3.1 Results of HIFU in PCa
As with CSAP, it appears to be difficult to interpret oncological outcome in patients undergoing HIFU since
various PSA thresholds are defined and no international consensus exists on objective response criteria. The
results of HIFU are limited, with outcome data from less than 1,000 PCa cases published in the literature.
According to the recent review mentioned above (12), HIFU showed PFS (based on PSA +/- biopsy
data) of 63-87% (projected 3- to 5-year data), but median follow-up in the studies ranged from 12-24 months
only.
In one of the largest single-centre studies, 227 patients with clinically organ-confined PCa were
treated with HIFU and their outcome data were analysed after a mean follow-up of 27 months (range: 12-121
months) (17). The projected 5-year BDFR was 66%, or only 57% if patients had exhibited a pre-therapeutic
PSA value of 4-10 ng/mL. Incontinence and bladder neck stricture decreased over time from 28% and 31% to
9% and 6%, respectively. In one of the studies (18), a significant decrease in pre-treatment PSA serum levels
from 12 ng/mL to 2.4 ng/mL was observed. However, 50% of the 14 patients demonstrated positive prostate
biopsies during follow-up. In another study (19), a complete response rate (i.e. PSA < 4 ng/mL) and six negative
biopsies were achieved in 56% of the patients.
Summarising the efficacy results of a European multicentre study comprising the data of 559 patients
with mainly low- and intermediate-risk PCa, Thüroff et al. (19) reported a negative biopsy rate of 87.2% in 288
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
73
men with a follow-up of at least 6 months. A PSA nadir after 6 months’ follow-up could be determined in 212
patients, and was as high as 1.8 ng/mL. However, following the initial procedure, it could be demonstrated that
the PSA nadir might be reached at 12-18 months.
Blana et al. reported on the results of 146 patients undergoing HIFU with a mean follow-up of 22.5
months (20). The mean PSA level at initiation of therapy was 7.6 ng/mL; the PSA nadir achieved after 3 months
was 0.07 ng/mL. However, after 22 months, the median PSA level was 0.15 ng/mL. Of the 137 men available
for analysis, 93.4% demonstrated a negative control biopsy. The PSA nadir appears to be strongly associated
with treatment failure (21) (p < 0.001). Patients with a PSA nadir of 0.0-0.2 ng/mL have a treatment failure rate
of only 11% compared with 46% in patients with a PSA nadir of 0.21-1.00 ng/mL, and 48% with a PSA nadir
of > 1.0 ng/mL. Recently, the group updated its results, with a total of 163 men treated for clinically organconfined PCa. Within the 4.8 +/- 1.2 years of follow-up, the actuarial disease-free survival rate at 5 years was
66%, with salvage treatment initiated in 12% of patients (22).
In another study, 517 men with organ-confined or locally advanced PCa were treated with HIFU (23).
Biochemical failure was defined as the PSA nadir + 2 ng/mL according to the Phoenix guidelines with regard
to radiation therapy. After a median follow-up of 24 months, the BDFR was 72% for the entire cohort. The
BDFR in patients with stage T1c, T2a, T2b, T2c and T3 groups at 5 years was 74%, 79%, 72%, 24% and
33%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The BDFR in patients in the low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups at 5 years
were 84%, 64% and 45%, respectively (p < 0.0001). The BDFR in patients treated with or without neoadjuvant
hormonal therapy at 7 years was 73% and 53% (p < 0.0001), respectively. Post-operative erectile dysfunction
was noted in 33 out of 114 (28.9%) patients who were pre-operatively potent.
11.3.2 Complications of HIFU
Urinary retention appears to be one of the most common side-effects of HIFU, developing in almost all
patients, with the mean interval of catheterisation via a suprapubic tube varying between 12 and 35 days (1618). Grade I and II urinary stress incontinence occurs in about 12% of patients. Subsequent TURP or bladder
neck incision to treat subvesical obstruction is common, and is sometimes even performed at the time of HIFU.
Post-operative impotence will occur in approximately 55-70% of patients.
11.4
Focal therapy of PCa
During the past two decades, there has been a trend towards earlier diagnosis of PCa due to greater public
and professional awareness leading to the adoption of both formal and informal screening strategies. The
effect of this has been to identify men with smaller tumours at an earlier stage, which occupy only 5-10% of the
prostate volume, with a greater propensity for unifocal or unilateral disease (24-26).
Most focal therapies to date have been achieved with ablative technologies; cryotherapy, HIFU or with
photodynamic therapy. So far, three groups have proposed that non-diseased prostate tissue be left untreated
in both the hope and expectation that genitourinary function might be preserved and the tumour treated
adequately (27-29). Although focal therapy is currently not the standard treatment for men with organ-confined
PCa, it is the therapeutic approach with the most important future potential.
11.4.1 Pre-therapeutic assessment of patients
The high random and systematic errors associated with TRUS-guided biopsy regimens mean that this
procedure is not sufficiently accurate for selecting candidates for focal therapy. The current standard for
characterising men considering focal therapy is transperineal prostate biopsy using a template-guided
approach (30,31). When used with a 5-mm sampling frame, this approach can rule-in and rule-out PCa foci of
0.5 mL and 0.2 mL volume with 90% certainty (32). Thus the exact anatomical localisation of the index lesion
– defined as the biologically most aggressive lesion – can be accurately determined.
11.4.2 Patient selection for focal therapy
The primary objective of treatment must be the eradication of measurable and biologically aggressive disease.
However, although treatment is usually intended to be a one-off therapy, patients should know that further
treatment might be necessary in the future.
Based on published data, the following criteria identify possible candidates for currently ongoing trials
of focal treatment:
•
Candidates for focal therapy should ideally undergo transperineal template mapping biopsies.
However, a state-of-the-art multifunctional MRI with TRUS biopsy at expert centres may be
acceptable.
•
Focal therapy should be limited to patients with a low to moderate risk. The tumour’s clinical stage
should be < cT2a and the radiological stage < cT2b.
•
Patients with previous prostate surgery should be counselled with caution because no data on
functional and oncological outcomes are available. Patients who have undergone radiation therapy of
74
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
•
the prostate are not candidates for focal therapy.
Patients must be informed that the therapy is still experimental and that there is a possibility of repeat
(re-do) treatment.
11.5
Summary of experimental therapeutic options to treat clinically localised PCa
Recommendation
GR
SAP has evolved from an investigational therapy to a possible alternative treatment for PCa in
C
patients who are unfit for surgery or with a life expectancy < 10 years.
C
All other minimally invasive treatment options – such as HIFU microwave and electrosurgery – are
still experimental or investigational. For all of these procedures, a longer follow-up is mandatory to
assess their true role in the management of PCa.
Focal therapy of PCa is still in its infancy and cannot be recommended as a therapeutic alternative
outside clinical trials.
C
11.6
References
1. Fahmy WE, Bissada NK. Cyrosurgery for prostate cancer. Arch Androl 2003 Sep-Oct;49(5):397-407.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12893518
Rees J, Patel B, Macdonagh R, et al. Cryosurgery for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2004 Apr;93(6):710-14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15049977
Han KR, Belldegrun AS. Third-generation cryosurgery for primary and recurrent prostate cancer. BJU
Int 2004 Jan;93(1):14-18.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14678360
Beerlage HP, Thüroff S, Madersbacher S, et al. Current status of minimally invasive treatment options
for localized prostate carcinoma. Eur Urol 2000 Jan;37(1):2-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10671777
Hull GW, Rabbani F, Abbas F, et al. Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000
consecutive patients. J Urol 2002 Feb;167(2Pt1):528-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11792912
Long JP, Bahn D, Lee F, et al. Five-year retrospective, multi-institutional pooled analysis of cancerrelated outcomes after cryosurgical ablation of the prostate. Urology 2001 Mar;57(3):518-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11248631
Donelly BJ, Saliken JC, Ernst DS, Ali-et al. Prospective trial of cryosurgical ablation of the prostate:
five year results. Urology 2002 Oct;60(4):645-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12385926
Han K, Cohen J, Miller R, et al. Treatment of organ confined prostate cancer with third generation
cryosurgery: preliminary multicentre experience. J Urol 2003 Oct;170(4Pt1):1126-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14501706
Bahn DK, Lee F, Baldalament R, et al. Targeted cryoablation of the prostate: 7-year outcomes in the
primary treatment of prostate cancer. Urology 2002 Aug;60(2 Suppl 1):3-11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206842
Koppie TM, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD, et al. The efficacy of cryosurgical ablation of prostate cancer:
the University of California, San Francisco experience. J Urol 1999 Aug;162(2):427-32.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10411051
De La Taille A, Benson MC, Bagiella E, et al. Cryoablation for clinically localized prostate cancer using
an argon-based system: complication rates and biochemical recurrence. BJU Int 2000 Feb;85(3):
281-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10671882
Aus G. Current status of HIFU and cryotherapy in prostate cancer–a review. Eur Urol 2006 Nov;50(5):
927-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16971038
Onik G, Narayan P, Vaughan D, et al. Focal ‘nerve-sparing’ cryosurgery for treatment of primary
prostate cancer: a new approach to preserving potency. Urology 2002 Jul;60(1):109-14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12100934
Robinson JW, Donnelly BJ, Saliken JC, et al. Quality of life and sexuality of men with prostate cancer
3 years after cryosurgery. Urology 2002 Aug;60(2 Suppl 1):12-18.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12206843
2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. UPDATE JANUARY 2011
75
15. 16.
17. 18.
19. 20. 21.
22.
23. 24. 25.
26. 27.
28.
29.
30. 31.
32.
76
Robinson JW, Donnelly BJ, Siever JE, et al. A randomized trial of external beam radiotherapy versus
cryoablation in patients with localized prostate cancer: quality of life outcomes. Cancer 2009 Oct;
115(20):4695-704.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19691092
Madersbacher S, Marberger M. High-energy shockwaves and extracorporeal high-intensity focused
ultrasound. J Endourol 2003 Oct;17(8):667-72.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14622487
Poissonnier L, Chapelon JY, Rouviere O, et al. Control of prostate cancer by transrectal HIFU in 227
patients. Eur Urol 2007 Feb;51(2):381-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16857310
Gelet A, Chapelon JY, Bouvier R, et al. Local control of prostate cancer by transrectal high intensity
focused ultrasound therapy: preliminary results. J Urol 1999 Jan;161(1):156-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10037389
Thüroff S, Chaussy C, Vallancien G, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound and localized prostate
cancer: efficacy from the European multicentric study. J Endourol 2003 Oct;17(8):673-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14622488
Blana A, Walter B, Rogenhofer S, et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of localized
prostate cancer: 5-year experience. Urology 2004 Feb;63(2)297-300.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14972475
Uchida T, Illing RO, Cathcart PJ, et al. To what extent does the prostate-specific antigen nadir predict
subsequent treatment failure after transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy for presumed
localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate? BJU Int 2006 Sep;98(3):537-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16925749
Blana A, Rogenhofer S, Ganzer R, et al. Eight years’ experience with high-intensity focused
ultrasonography for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Urology 2008 Dec;72(6):1329-33.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18829078
Uchida T, Shoji S, Nakano M, et al. Transrectal high-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of
localized prostate cancer: eight-year experience. Int J Urol 2009 Nov;16(11):881-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19863624
Mouraviev V, Mayes JM, Polascik TJ. Pathologic basis of focal therapy for early-stage prostate
cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2009 Apr;6(4):205-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19352395
Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, et al. Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk
assessment and treatment. J Urol 2007 Sep;178(3Pt 2):S14-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17644125
Polascik TJ, Mayes JM, Sun L, et al. Pathologic stage T2a and T2b prostate cancer in the recent
prostate-specific antigen era: implications for unilateral ablative therapy. Prostate 2008 Sep;68(13):
1380.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18543281
Ahmed HU, Pendse D, Illing R, et al. Will focal therapy become standard of care for men with localized
prostate cancer? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007 Nov;4(11):632-42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17965641
Eggener SE, Scardino PT, Carroll PR, et al; International Task Force on Prostate Cancer and the Focal
Lesion Paradigm. Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer: a critical appraisal of rationale and
modalities. J Urol 2007 Dec;178(6):2260-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17936815
Crawford ED, Barqawi A. Targeted focal therapy: a minimally invasive ablation technique for early
prostate cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 2007 Jan;21(1):27-32.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17313155
Onik G, Miessau M, Bostwick DG. Three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially
significant impact on prostate cancer management. J Clin Oncol 2009 Sep;10:27(26):4321-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19652073
Onik G, Barzell W. Transperineal 3D mapping biopsy of the prostate: an essential tool in selecting
patients for focal prostate cancer therapy. Urol Oncol 2008 Sep-Oct;26(5):506-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18774464
Crawford ED, Wilson SS, Torkko KC, et al. Clinical staging of prostate cancer: a computer-simulated
study of transperineal prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2005 Nov;96(7):999-1004.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16225516
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
12. HORMONAL THERAPY
12.1 Introduction
In 1941, Huggins and Hodges assessed the favourable effect of surgical castration and oestrogen
administration on the progression of metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). They demonstrated for the first time the
responsiveness of PCa to androgen deprivation (1,2).
Since Huggins and Hodges’ pivotal studies, androgen-suppressing strategies have become the
mainstay of management of advanced PCa. More recently, however, there has been a move towards the
increasing use of hormonal treatment in younger men with earlier disease (i.e. non-metastatic) or recurrent
disease after definitive treatment, either as the primary single-agent therapy or as a part of a multimodality
approach (3).
Even if hormonal treatment effectively palliates the symptoms of advanced disease, there is no
conclusive evidence at present that it extends life.
12.1.1 Basics of hormonal control of the prostate
Prostate cells are physiologically dependent on androgens to stimulate growth, function and proliferation.
Testosterone, although not tumorigenic, is essential for the growth and perpetuation of tumour cells (4). The
testes are the source of most of the androgens, with only 5-10% (androstenedione, dihydroepiandrosterone
and dihydroepiandrosterone sulphate) being derived from adrenal biosynthesis.
Testosterone secretion is regulated by the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. The hypothalamic
luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) stimulates the anterior pituitary gland to release luteinising
hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). Luteinising hormone stimulates the Leydig cells
of the testes to secrete testosterone. Within the prostate cells, testosterone is converted by the enzyme
5-α-reductase into 5-α-dihydrotestosterone (DHT), which is an androgenic stimulant about 10 times more
powerful than the parent molecule (5). Circulating testosterone is peripherally aromatised and converted into
oestrogens, which together with circulating androgens, exert a negative feedback control on hypothalamic LH
secretion.
If prostate cells are deprived of androgenic stimulation, they undergo apoptosis (programmed cell
death). Any treatment that results ultimately in suppression of androgen activity is referred to as androgen
deprivation therapy (ADT).
12.1.2 Different types of hormonal therapy
Androgen deprivation can be achieved by:
•
suppressing the secretion of testicular androgens by surgical or medical castration
or
•
inhibiting the action of the circulating androgens at the level of their receptor in prostate cells using
competing compounds known as anti-androgens.
In addition, these two methods of androgen deprivation can be combined to achieve what is commonly known
as complete (or maximal or total) androgen blockade (CAB).
12.2
Testosterone-lowering therapy (castration)
12.2.1 Castration level
Surgical castration is still considered the ‘gold standard’ for ADT against which all other treatments are
rated. Removal of the testicular source of androgens leads to a considerable decline in testosterone levels
and induces a hypogonadal status, although a very low level of testosterone (known as the ‘castration level’)
persists.
The standard castrate level is < 50 ng/dL. It was defined more than 40 years ago, when testosterone level
testing was limited. However, according to current testing methods using chemiluminescence, the mean value
of testosterone after surgical castration is 15 ng/dL (6). This has led to a revisiting of the current definition of
castration, with some authors suggesting a more appropriate level to be < 20 ng/dL.
12.2.2 Bilateral orchiectomy
Bilateral orchiectomy, either total or by means of a subcapsular technique (i.e. with preservation of tunica
albuginea and epididymis), is a simple and virtually complication-free surgical procedure easily performed
under local anaesthesia (7). It is the quickest way to achieve a castration level, usually within less than 12
hours.
The main drawback of orchiectomy is that it may have a negative psychological effect: some men
consider it to be an unacceptable assault on their manhood. In addition, it is irreversible and does not allow
for intermittent treatment. The use of bilateral orchiectomy has declined recently, probably because of stage
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
77
migration towards earlier disease and the introduction of equally effective pharmacological modalities of
castration (8).
12.3
Oestrogens
Oestrogens have several mechanisms of action:
•
down-regulation of LHRH secretion;
•
androgen inactivation;
•
direct suppression of Leydig cell function;
•
direct cytotoxicity to the prostate epithelium (in-vitro evidence only) (9).
12.3.1 Diethylstilboesterol (DES)
Diesthylstilboesterol (DES) is the most commonly used oestrogen in PCa. Early studies by the Veterans
Administration Co-operative Urological Research Group (VACURG) (10) tested oral DES at a dosage of
5 mg/day (as this was the dosage used in CAB). However, this dosage treatment was associated with high
cardiovascular morbidity and mortality due to first-pass hepatic metabolism and the formation of thrombogenic
metabolites. Lower oral dosages (1 mg and 3 mg) were therefore tested (11). Both dosages provided a
therapeutic efficacy comparable to that of bilateral orchiectomy, though DES, 3 mg, was still associated with
high cardiotoxicity. However, even though DES, 1 mg, had much fewer adverse cardiovascular events than
DES, 5 mg, the side-effects of 1 mg of DES were still significantly greater than with castration. Because of
these concerns, and the advent of LHRH agonists and anti-androgens, until recently the use of DES had fallen
out of favour.
12.3.2 Renewed interest in oestrogens
There are three main reasons for the renewed interest in using oestrogens to treat PCa.
1.LHRH agonists have a number of deleterious side-effects and their long-term widespread use is
costly, while oestrogens suppress testosterone levels and do not seem to lead to bone loss and
cognitive decline (12) (LE: 3).
2.In phase II trials with patients diagnosed with hormone-refractory PCa (HRPC), oestrogenic
compounds (DES, DES-diphosphate) have induced prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates as
high as 86%.
3.A new oestrogen receptor-β (ER-β), possibly involved in prostate tumorigenesis, has been discovered
(9).
12.3.3 Strategies to counteract the cardiotoxicity of oestrogen therapy
Two strategies have been used to try to neutralise the cardiotoxicity that is the main drawback of oestrogen
therapy:
•
parenteral route of administration – so avoiding first-pass hepatic metabolism;
•
cardiovascular-protecting agents.
The Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group Study 5 was a prospective randomised trial of more than 900 men
with metastatic PCa, comparing a parenteral oestrogen (polyoestradiol phosphate) with CAB (orchiectomy,
or an LHRH agonist + flutamide). No significant difference was shown in disease-specific survival and
OS between the treatment groups, while the oestrogen-treated group showed no significant increase in
cardiovascular mortality. However, the oestrogen-treated group showed a significantly higher incidence of nonfatal adverse cardiovascular events, particularly ischaemic and heart decompensation events (13, for update
see 14).
In addition, thromboembolic complications were observed in three recent (though small) phase II trials
of patients with advanced PCa or HRPC. The trials were evaluating the combination of DES, 1 mg/day or 3 mg/
day, with either a low dose of warfarin sodium, 1 mg/day, or a low dose of aspirin, 75-100 mg/day, for the
prevention of cardiovascular toxicity (15-17).
12.3.4 Conclusions
Diethylstilboesterol is one of the classic forms of hormonal therapy. Its efficacy was demonstrated many years
ago and was recently re-confirmed in a meta-analysis as comparable to that of bilateral orchiectomy (18) (LE:
1a). However, there is still concern about the significant cardiovascular side-effects of DES, even at lower
dosages. Further data are needed before oestrogens can be re-admitted into clinical practice as a standard
first-line treatment option.
12.4
LHRH agonists
Long-acting LHRH agonists (busereline, gosereline, leuproreline and triptoreline) have been used in advanced
78
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
PCa for more than 15 years and are currently the main forms of ADT (3,19). They are synthetic analogues of
LHRH, generally delivered as depot injections on a 1-, 2-, 3-, or 6-monthly basis by initially stimulating pituitary
LHRH receptors, inducing a transient rise in LH and FSH release. This then elevates testosterone production
(known as the ‘testosterone surge’ or ‘flare up’ phenomenon), which begins within approximately 2-3 days of
the first injection and lasts through approximately the first week of therapy (20).
12.4.1 Achievement of castration levels
Chronic exposure to LHRH agonists eventually results in down-regulation of LHRH-receptors. This then
suppresses pituitary LH and FSH secretion and testosterone production so that testosterone levels decrease to
castration levels usually within 2-4 weeks (21,22). However, about 10% of patients treated with LHRH agonists
fail to achieve castration levels (23). This proportion rises to 15% if the castration threshold is defined as
20 ng/dL.
A recent meta-analysis evaluating single-therapy ADT for advanced PCa showed that LHRH agonists
have comparable efficacy to orchiectomy and DES (18) (LE: 1a). This finding questions the clinical impact of
changing the definition of the castrate testosterone level from 50 ng/dL to 20 ng/dL. In addition, although only
based on indirect comparison, the LHRH agonists seemed equally effective whatever their formulation (18)
(LE: 3).
12.4.2 Flare-up phenomenon
Today, LHRH agonists have become the ‘standard of care’ in hormonal therapy because they avoid the
physical and psychological discomfort associated with orchiectomy and lack the potential cardiotoxicity
associated with DES. However, the main concerns associated with the administration of LHRH agonists are the
potentially detrimental effects associated with the ‘flare phenomenon’ in advanced disease, namely increased
bone pain, acute bladder outlet obstruction, obstructive renal failure, spinal cord compression, and fatal
cardiovascular events due to hypercoagulation status.
A recent review (24) concluded that clinical flare needs to be distinguished from the more common
biochemical flare (i.e. increasing levels of PSA), and even from asymptomatic radiographic evidence of
progression. The review also identified that patients at risk for clinical flare are overwhelmingly patients with
high-volume, symptomatic, bony disease, which account for only 4-10% of M1 patients.
Anti-androgen treatment
Concomitant therapy with an anti-androgen decreases the incidence of clinical relapse, but does not
completely remove the possibility of its occurrence. Anti-androgens should be started on the same day as the
depot LHRH injection and should be continued for a 2-week period.
However, in patients with impending spinal cord compression, other strategies for immediately
ablating testosterone levels must be used, such as bilateral orchiectomy or LHRH-antagonists. Except in this
group of patients, the clinical impact of the flare-up observation is unknown.
Mini-flares with long-term use of LHRH agonists
Some mini-flares have also been observed with the long-term use of LHRH agonists; the clinical impact is
unknown.
12.5
LHRH antagonists
In contrast to LHRH agonists, LHRH antagonists bind immediately and competitively to LHRH receptors in
the pituitary gland. The effect is a rapid decrease in LH, FSH and testosterone levels without any flare. This
seemingly more desirable mechanism of action has made LHRH antagonists very attractive. However, practical
shortcomings have limited clinical studies. Many LHRH antagonists have been associated with serious and lifethreatening histamine-mediated side-effects and, until recently, no depot formulation was available.
12.5.1 Abarelix
Two recently published phase III randomised multicentre trials compared the LHRH antagonist, abarelix, with
the LHRH agonist, leuprorelin acetate (25), and with CAB (26), in patients with metastatic or recurrent PCa.
Both trials showed no difference in achieving and maintaining castration levels of testosterone and in reducing
serum PSA. The biochemical ‘flare up’ phenomenon was not reported in the abarelix arm and the overall
incidence of severe adverse events (including allergic reactions) was similar across all treatment groups. Data
on survival end-points and long-term safety are not yet available.
The US Food and Drug Administration has recently licensed the clinical use of abarelix, but only in
metastatic and symptomatic PCa for which no other treatment option is available (27).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
79
12.5.2 Degarelix
Degarelix is another LHRH antagonist that has shown promising preliminary results in a monthly subcutaneous
formulation. Following phase II trials (28), a large, randomised, non-inferiority, dose-finding study (n = 610)
compared two degarelix dosages with 7.5 mg monthly leuprorelin injections (29). The study showed that the
standard dosage of degarelix should be 240 mg the first month, followed by 80 mg monthly injections. More
than 95% of patients achieved a castrate level at day 3 with degarelix, which was associated with a quicker
decline in PSA as soon as day 14. No allergic reaction was observed. The main criterion (testosteronemy
< 0.5 ng/mL at all monthly measurements) was similar in the three treatment groups at 1 year. The main
specific side-effect of degarelix was a painful injection (moderate or mild) reported in 40% of patients, mainly
after the first injection.
12.5.3 Conclusions
Overall, this new family of agents seems appealing, but their advantages over LHRH agonists are far from
proven. Further trials are needed to confirm the preliminary, observed, increased efficacy compared to
leuprorelin. The use of LHRH antagonists is limited by a monthly formulation, compared with 3-month and
6-month depot formulations for leuprorelin. Suppression of the initial flare up with monotherapy is only clinically
relevant in a few, symptomatic, metastatic patients. Long-term efficacy must be proven, with most available
trials limited to a 1-year follow-up period.
12.6
Anti-androgens
Anti-androgens compete with testosterone and DHT at the receptor level in the prostate cell nucleus, thus
promoting apoptosis and inhibiting PCa growth (30).
These oral compounds are classified according to their chemical structure as steroidal, e.g.
cyproterone acetate (CPA), megestrol acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate, and non-steroidal or pure,
e.g. nilutamide, flutamide and bicalutamide. Both classes compete with androgens at the receptor level.
This is the sole action of non-steroidal anti-androgens. However, in addition, steroidal anti-androgens have
progestational properties due to central inhibition of the pituitary gland. As a consequence, non-steroidal antiandrogens do not lower testosterone levels, which remain normal or, conversely, slightly elevated.
12.6.1 Steroidal anti-androgens
These compounds are synthetic derivatives of hydroxyprogesterone. In addition to peripherally blocking
androgen receptors, they have progestational properties and inhibit the release of gonadotrophins (LH and
FSH) and suppress adrenal activity. At high doses, megestrol acetate is cytotoxic. Since steroidal antiandrogens lower testosterone levels, the main pharmacological side-effects are loss of libido and erectile
dysfunction, while gynaecomastia is quite rare. The non-pharmacological side-effects are cardiovascular
toxicity (4-40% for CPA) and hepatotoxicity.
12.6.1.1Cyproterone acetate (CPA)
Cyproterone acetate was the first anti-androgen to be licensed and is the most widely used. However, it
is the least studied, with most questions about its use unanswered, e.g. the optimal dose, or unclear, e.g.
comparison with standard forms of castration, surgical or with an agonist.
Comparison of CPA with medical castration
There has been only one randomised trial (31) comparing CPA with standard hormonal therapy, i.e. medical
castration. Patients in arm A (no contraindications to DES) were randomly assigned to CPA, goserelin or DES,
while patients in arm B (contraindications to DES) were assigned to CPA or goserelin. In arm A, treatment with
CPA was associated with significantly poorer median overall survival (OS) than goserelin only; adjusting for
baseline characteristics did not account for this difference.
Two other studies in CPA monotherapy have been performed. However, one study did not report
survival data (32), and the other used a non-standard treatment combination of DES and medroxyprogesterone
acetate (33). It is therefore difficult to draw any definite conclusions from these data about the relative efficacy
of CPA and castration.
Dosage regimen of CPA
Because there have been no dose-finding studies of CPA monotherapy, the most effective dose is still
unknown. Although CPA has a relatively long half-life (31-41 hours), it is usually administered in two or three
fractionated doses of 100 mg each (34).
Comparative study of CPA with flutamide
The only comparative study on anti-androgens as monotherapy was recently published by the European
80
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). The final analysis of Protocol 30892 (a
randomised trial of 310 patients comparing CPA with flutamide in metastatic PCa) showed no difference in
cancer-specific survival and OS at a median follow-up of 8.6 years, although the study was underpowered (35)
(LE: 1b).
12.6.1.2Megestrol acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate
Very limited information is available on these two compounds. Early studies with megestrol acetate
demonstrated a symptomatic and partially beneficial clinical response, both in previously untreated metastatic
PCa (36-38) and, to a lesser extent, in HRPC (39). No apparent dose-response correlation was shown to exist
in a recent trial (40). The overall poor efficacy has prevented megestrol acetate and medroxyprogesterone
acetate from being recommended for either primary- or second-line hormonal therapy.
The only prospective randomised trial evaluating medroxyprogesterone acetate as primary therapy
in advanced (M0-1) PCa is the EORTC 30761 study (41), in which 236 patients were given CPA, DES or
medroxyprogesterone acetate. Although there was no difference in cancer-specific survival and OS between
CPA and DES, treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate had a less favourable course with a shorter
survival time and time to progression than either of the other CPA or DES.
12.6.2 Non-steroidal anti-androgens
The use of non-steroidal anti-androgens as monotherapy has been promoted on the basis of improved quality
of life (QoL) and compliance compared with castration. They do not suppress testosterone secretion and it is
claimed that libido, overall physical performance and bone mineral density (BMD) are preserved (42).
Although they have not been directly compared in a monotherapy setting, the severity of
pharmacological side-effects, namely gynaecomastia, breast pain and hot flashes, appears similar for the three
available non-steroidal anti-androgens. However, there are differences in non-pharmacological side-effects,
with bicalutamide showing a more favourable safety and tolerability profile than nilutamide and flutamide (43).
All three agents share a common liver toxicity and liver enzymes must monitored regularly.
12.6.2.1Nilutamide
There are no comparative trials of nilutamide monotherapy with castration or with other anti-androgens (44).
Only one non-comparative study has been carried out, including 26 patients with M1 PCa who received
nilutamide, 100 mg three times daily. Only 38.5% of patients experienced an objective response. The median
progression-free survival (PFS) time was 9 months and the median OS was 23 months (45).
A large randomised controlled trial in 457 patients with M1 PCa showed a significant benefit for
cancer-specific survival and OS with orchiectomy + nilutamide, 300 mg/day, versus orchiectomy + placebo
(46). Nilutamide has recently shown encouraging results as a second-line hormonal therapy in HRPC (47,48).
Non-pharmacological side-effects are visual disturbances (i.e. delayed adaptation to darkness),
alcohol intolerance, nausea, hepatotoxicity, and interstitial pneumonitis. The latter, even if exceptional, is
potentially life-threatening and is specific to nilutamide. Nilutamide is not licensed for monotherapy.
12.6.2.2Flutamide
Flutamide was the first non-steroidal anti-androgen available for clinical use. Although it has been studied as
monotherapy for more than 20 years, there are no dose-finding studies against a currently accepted end-point
(e.g. PSA response). Flutamide is a pro-drug, and the half-life of the active metabolite is 5-6 hours, so it must
be administered three times daily to maintain therapeutic serum levels. The recommended daily dosage is
750 mg (34).
Early phase II trials demonstrated the efficacy of flutamide in the treatment of advanced PCa, even
though the reported response rates cannot be correlated with currently recommended end-points. The main
advantage shown in these studies was the preservation of sexual function, which was maintained in up to 80%
of patients with no pre-treatment erectile dysfunction (49-52). This rate has not been confirmed in the abovementioned EORTC trial 30892 (35), in which as few as 20% of men treated with flutamide maintained sexual
activity for up to 7 years.
Although several phase III studies have been conducted, the results are often difficult to evaluate
because of several drawbacks, such as the use of non-standard combinations, short-term follow-up and
underpowering. Of these studies, survival data for advanced PCa has been reported in only two phase III
randomised trials comparing flutamide monotherapy with standard therapy, i.e. CAB (54) and orchiectomy (53).
Both studies showed no significant difference in OS for flutamide or castration in patients with a PSA < 100 ng/
mL (53). At a higher PSA, flutamide was inferior. However, both trials were underpowered. Results are eagerly
awaited from an ongoing Swedish study, which has randomised 700 patients with M1 PCa to flutamide,
250 mg three times daily, or CAB (42). The non-pharmacological side-effects of flutamide are diarrhoea and
hepatotoxicity (occasionally fatal).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
81
12.6.2.3Bicalutamide
Dose-finding studies of bicalutamide
Early studies with bicalutamide monotherapy used the 50 mg dosage licensed for use in CAB. Although
bicalutamide 50 mg/day had clinical benefits, a dosage of 50 mg/day resulted in a poorer OS than castration
(median difference 97 days) (55). Subsequent dose-finding studies established that bicalutamide, 150 mg
once daily, achieved a similar PSA response to castration, while maintaining a good tolerability profile (56).
Accordingly, the 150 mg dosage was chosen for further evaluation as both primary and adjuvant monotherapy.
Primary monotherapy with bicalutamide
Bicalutamide, 150 mg/day, has been compared as first-line monotherapy with medical or surgical castration
in two large prospective randomised trials with identical study designs, including a total of 1,435 patients with
locally advanced M0 or M1 PCa (57). A pooled analysis showed:
•
In M1 patients, an improvement in OS with castration, although the difference in median survival
between the groups was only 6 weeks (57); a further post hoc analysis showed a survival benefit only
for patients with higher PSA levels (< 400 ng/mL) at study entry (58).
•
In M0 patients (n = 480), no significant difference was noted in OS (59) based on the Kaplan-Meier
test, with median survival being 63.5 months in the bicalutamide arm compared with 69.9 months in
the castration one.
In two smaller randomised trials, high-dose bicalutamide was compared with CAB. In the first trial (251 patients
with predominantly M1 stage), no difference in OS was apparent (60). In the second trial (220 patients with M0
and M1 stage), there was no difference in OS for well- or moderately-well-differentiated tumours (61) (LE: 1b).
However, both studies were underpowered, and the first one has not yet been fully published.
Adjuvant therapy with bicalutamide
In the adjuvant setting, the ongoing Early Prostate Cancer Programme (EPCP) is a study comprising three
different clinical trials (known as Trials 23, 24 and 25) of similar design. The programme included 8,113 patients
worldwide and evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of high-dose (150 mg/day) bicalutamide versus placebo,
given in addition to standard primary care (i.e. radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy and watchful waiting) in
either localised PCa (T1-2, N0-X) or locally advanced PCa (T3-4, any N, or any T N+). The first combined
analysis of the programme showed that, after a median follow-up of 3 years, adjuvant bicalutamide reduced
the risk of objective disease progression by 42% compared with standard care alone (62).
After a median follow-up of 5.4 years, the positive effects of bicalutamide were obvious in patients
with locally advanced disease (stage M0). Bicalutamide significantly improved PFS, irrespective of standard
care. However, survival appeared to be reduced in patients with localised disease treated with bicalutamide
versus those given placebo (63). After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there appeared to be no benefit to PFS
from the addition of bicalutamide to standard care in localised PCa, with a trend towards decreased survival in
patients otherwise undergoing watchful waiting (WW) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI: 0.99-1.37; p = 0.07).
The same overall results were observed in the most recent analysis of the bicalutamide treatment arm
of the EPCP 24 trial (64). Bicalutamide significantly improved OS in patients receiving radiotherapy (HR, 0.65;
95% CI: 0.44-0.95; p = 0.03), mainly due to a lower risk of PCa-related deaths. Bicalutamide produced a trend
towards improved OS in patients with locally advanced disease otherwise undergoing WW (HR, 0.81; 95% CI:
0.66-1.01; p = 0.06). No survival difference was evident in the subgroup undergoing radical prostatectomy (63).
Even though the EPCP is a combination of three trials and among the largest conducted in PCa
patients, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions because of problems with the protocols (65), including:
•
The three trials grouped for analysis were different in terms of patients; 80% of patients underwent
prostatectomy in trial 23 versus 13% in trial 25. In addition, treatment duration was 2 years in trial 23,
but prolonged until progression in Trials 24 and 25.
•
The OS benefit claimed with radiotherapy is mainly driven by a respiratory or cardiovascular
improvement, and not by a cancer-specific survival benefit, which is different to other trials with LHRH
agonists (66).
•
Furthermore, the EPCP trials are underpowered for locally advanced patients, compared with oriented
trials such as the Bolla (67) or Pilepich (68) trials.
•
Direct protocol analysis revealed quite different results, such as those from EPCP Trial 23 (80%
prostatectomy, 19% radiotherapy) (69). At a median 7.7 years of follow-up, no PFS benefit was
observed (HR, 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84-1.19; p = 0.991). Likewise, OS did not differ. Even after stratifying
for disease stage, no PFS benefit was apparent.
•
The OS benefit must be balanced by the very prolonged (mainly permanent) use of bicalutamide
combined with radiotherapy in contrast to the more limited use of agonists (6 months to 3 years in
most studies).
82
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
•
lthough a QoL benefit has been claimed, in fact a QoL benefit cannot be demonstrated because
A
none of the EPCP trials used a systematic, validated QoL questionnaire. The only QoL data was
derived from a specific questionnaire and a limited population. The observed benefit was only
significant for physical capacity and sexual interest (not function!). For all other QoL items (emotional
well-being, vitality, social function, pain, activity limitation and bed disability), there was no difference
compared with castration (70). The breast problems related to bicalutamide are also important, as they
can lead to a 16.4% treatment cessation (71).
The lack of data means that many questions are still debatable with bicalutamide, such as the practical
management after progression under bicalutamide.
Furthermore, the clear trend (even if not statistically significant) suggesting a decreased OS in
localised disease treated with WW is a clear argument against the use of bicalutamide in such situations (63).
The mechanisms involved remain unclear.
Conclusions for the use of bicalutamide in primary and adjuvant therapy
•
•
•
•
igh-dose bicalutamide has emerged as an alternative to castration for patients with locally
H
advanced (M0) if PFS is the target, and in highly selected, well-informed cases of M1 PCa with a low
PSA (72).
Bicalutamide should be avoided in patients with localised PCa.
The expected benefit of bicalutamide for QoL compared with castration is far from being proven.
The survival benefit observed with adjuvant use after radiotherapy in locally advanced PCa must
be considered with caution, as the EPCP trials do not have the clear power of trials conducted with
LHRH agonists. The lack of any direct comparison between both bicalutamide and LHRH agonists in
combination with radiotherapy leads to a major limitation of any guidelines, which should therefore
be based on unquestionable trials, which are mainly those with analogues.
Side-effects of bicalutamide
Non-pharmacological side-effects are mainly gynaecomastia (70%) and breast pain (68%), which may be
prevented by anti-oestrogens (73-75), prophylactic radiotherapy (76), or treatment with surgical mastectomy or
radiotherapy (77). However, bicalutamide clearly offers bone protection compared with LHRH analogues and
probably LHRH antagonists (78,79).
12.7
Combination therapies
12.7.1 Complete androgen blockade (CAB)
Although castration reduces serum testosterone levels by up to 95%, an intraprostatic androgen stimulus
is sustained by the conversion of circulating androgens of adrenal origin into DHT within the prostate cells.
However, the action of these adrenal androgens can be blocked by the addition of an anti-androgen to either
surgical or pharmacological castration, a concept known as complete (or maximal or total) androgen blockade
(CAB).
The many studies comparing CAB with monotherapy have produced contrasting results (80).
According to the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, at a follow-up of 5 years, CAB appears to
provide a small survival advantage (< 5%) versus monotherapy (81-85, LE: 1a). However, some of the largest
trials included were methodologically flawed (86). It remains debatable whether this small advantage, if any, is
useful in everyday clinical practice, as the survival benefit seems limited to patients taking non-steroidal antiandrogens (87) and only appears after 5 years of follow-up.
Gastrointestinal, ophthalmological, and haematological side-effects are worse with CAB. Although
LHRH analogues and non-steroidal anti-androgens have the highest estimated quality-adjusted survival, there
is an incremental cost of more than US$1 million per quality-adjusted live-year for CAB over orchiectomy alone.
12.7.2 Minimal androgen blockade (or peripheral androgen blockade)
Minimal androgen blockade is produced by combining finasteride with a non-steroidal anti-androgen.
Finasteride reduces intraprostatic levels of DHT by inhibiting 5-α-reductase, while the anti-androgen competes
with the binding of the residual DHT to its receptor. This enables testosterone levels to be maintained within
normal ranges to ensure acceptable sexual function and a reasonable QoL.
Several phase II trials (88-92) have evaluated the association of finasteride and flutamide, either given
together or sequentially, using the PSA response rate in patients with advanced or biochemically recurrent
PCa. Notwithstanding the small sample and short follow-up, nearly all patients experienced a substantial
decline in PSA (by up to 96% compared with the baseline level at entry). In a long-term follow-up of one
study, stronger end-points were reported, including castration-free survival (median: 37 months), androgenindependent PCa-free survival (median: 48.6 months) and OS (65% at 5 years). These results indicated that
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
83
combination therapy was able to induce an overall period of hormone-responsive disease exceeding 4 years
(93). In all these trials, sexual function was preserved in 55-86% of men studied.
The preliminary data make minimal androgen blockade a most attractive option in the management
of patients for whom QoL is the main concern. However, while awaiting the results of follow-up and larger
controlled trials, this treatment should be considered investigational.
12.7.3 Intermittent versus continuous ADT
For reasons still unclear, long-term CAB, which stimulates prostate cell apoptosis, fails to eliminate the entire
malignant cell population. Thus, after a variable period (averaging 24 months), the tumour inevitably relapses,
characterised by an androgen-independent state of growth. Experimental data indicate that androgenindependent progression may begin early after the administration of hormonal therapy, coinciding with the
cessation of androgen-induced differentiation of stem cells (94). It has therefore been suggested that stopping
androgen deprivation prior to progression of androgen-independent cells would mean any subsequent tumour
growth would be solely sustained by the proliferation of androgen-dependent stem cells. The stem cells should
therefore be susceptible once again to androgen withdrawal. Thus, intermittent androgen blockade (IAD) would
delay the emergence of the androgen-independent clone.
Other possible benefits of IAD include the preservation of QoL in off-treatment periods and a
reduction in the cost of treatment.
Phase II results
A detailed systematic review was recently published (95), with no other trials published since this review.
According to the review, several phase II trials demonstrated the feasibility of IAB in metastatic or biochemically
recurrent disease (95). Both PSA response rates and symptom improvement were similar to those seen with
CAB. However, these trials included very heterogeneous patients and used different PSA thresholds for
decisions regarding castration. This should be borne in mind when considering the main findings:
•
Most patients were treated with an LHRH agonist, with or without an anti-androgen;
•
The cycle lengths were quite stable regarding the off-treatment periods;
•
Testosterone recovery, when tested, was frequent during the first cycle, but tended to decrease
during subsequent cycles;
•
Early occurrence of early refractory status was quite uncommon;
•
Overall tolerability was acceptable, and sometimes there was a QoL benefit, especially for sexual
function.
These findings suggest a potential benefit for IAD. However, randomised trials are required to clarify the
potential survival benefit suggested by animal models.
Randomised controlled trials
Overall, eight randomised trials are underway, only some of which have published findings. Most of the trials
included a mixed patient population, i.e. both locally advanced and metastatic disease. Only three trials
included only metastatic patients, and two trials only relapsing patients. The two largest trials each contained
more than 1,300 patients, with one trial focused only on metastatic patients (SWOG 9346) and the other on
relapsing patients after radiotherapy (SWOG JPR7).
A short summary of the most important published findings from these trials follows:
•
The South West Oncology Group (SWOG) trial 9346 randomised 1,134 men with stage D2 PCa to
intermittent and continuous ADT after 7 months’ induction ADT with PSA reduction < 4 ng/mL. A
very preliminary analysis has identified no significant differences with regard to survival between
treatment groups (96). A PSA reduction to < 0.2 ng/mL, < 4 ng/mL and > 4 ng/mL was identified as a
significant prognostic factor with regard to survival, achieving 13 months, 44 months and 75 months,
respectively.
•
In another trial, 75 patients were considered for IAD after 9 months’ treatment with ADT, provided
they had achieved PSA serum levels < 4 ng/mL or at least a 90% reduction in pre-treatment levels
(97). Treatment with 9 months of ADT was only repeated when PSA values rose > 20 ng/mL. 86% of
the men were alive at a median of 134 months, with a median survival of 95 months from the initial
ADT cycle. At 5 years, 100% and 70% survival rates were calculated for those presenting with locally
advanced disease and metastases, respectively.
•
In a similar patient population and using a quite similar protocol, no difference was observed in OS nor
PFS between IAD and CAB in 173 randomised patients (98), with a mean follow-up of 47 months. No
QoL benefit was observed in any treatment arm.
•
The same lack of OS difference was observed using CPA in another randomised study of 366 patients
(99), after a mean follow-up of 66 months.
84
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
•
he only trial with results available on relapse after a local treatment is clearly underpowered with a
T
short follow-up. But once again, no difference in PFS was seen (100).
Mixed populations
The same overall results have been observed for trials with mixed populations. A prospective, randomised,
multicentre trial (n = 68) with a mean follow-up of 31 months was reported (101). In the IAD-treated group,
the median cycle length was 9.5 months and the median percentage of time off-treatment was 59.5%. The
median 3-year progression rate was significantly lower in the IAD group (7%) than in the CAD group (38.9%),
suggesting that IAD maintains the androgen-dependent state of advanced PCa at least as long as does CAD.
In a prospective trial, which included 478 patients with either M1 disease (40%) or N+ (N1-3) disease
(102), 335 patients were randomised to IAD after 6 months of CAB if the PSA decreased to < 4 ng/mL or a
decrease of > 90% was observed. The mean initial PSA was 158 ng/mL in the IAD-treated group, and 139
ng/mL in the CAB-treated group. In the IAD group, treatment was resumed if the PSA rose > 10 ng/mL and
stopped when it decreased < 4 ng/mL. However, after a median follow-up of 50.5 months, no significant
difference was observed in the median PFS (16.6 months in the IAD group vs 11.5 months in the CAB group,
p = 0.17) in either the total study population or in the N+ or M1 subgroup populations. In the IAD arm, 88% of
patients were off-treatment for more than 50% of the time and normalised their testosterone in a mean of 70
days after stopping treatment.
SEUG trial results
To date, the largest trial (n = 766) with published results has been carried out by the South European UroOncological Group (SEUG) (103). After a 3-months’ induction regimen (CPA for 2 weeks followed by monthly
LHRH + CPA), patients with a PSA < 4 ng/ml, or a decrease > 80% were randomised to IAD or CAB. In the
IAD-treated group, treatment was resumed according to the PSA nadir (< 4 ng/mL or above), and symptoms,
to either PSA > 10 or 20 ng/mL, or if there was a PSA rise > 20% above the nadir. The primary end-point
was time to progression. After a median follow-up of 51 months, there was no difference in either time to
progression (HR, 0.81; p = 0.11) or OS (HR, 0.99). Metastatic status and PSA at randomisation were associated
with specific death rates.
No overall QoL benefit was seen, except for more frequent side-effects in the CAB-treated group.
However, there was a clear benefit for improved sexual function in the IAD group versus the CAB group (28%
sexually active vs 10% at 15 months after randomisation, respectively).
Alternative IAD regimen
Recently, a published randomised trial (n = 129) suggested an alternative IAD regimen involving fixed 6-month
periods of treatment (CAB) and surveillance (104). The PSA response was not used to guide treatment in the
heterogeneous study population. After a mean follow-up of 44.8 months, no difference was observed in OS,
cancer-specific survival or PFS. The QoL also showed no difference between the two groups, except that
painkillers were required more often in the IAD arm, and the ability to get and maintain an erection was better in
the IAD arm.
Other benefits of IAD
Intermittent androgen deprivation has not been shown to be associated with prolonged hormone-sensitive
status or OS increase. This modality is well accepted by patients, urologists and oncologists. Although the QoL
benefit is less than expected or absent except in one study (99), IAD is better tolerated and sometimes benefits
sexual functioning (102,103). Other possible long-term benefits, which are not clearly proven, include bone
protection (105,106), or protective effect against metabolic syndrome. Testosterone recovery is seen in most
studies (95), leading to an intermittent castration (not just an intermittent treatment delivery).
Optimal threshold for stopping or resuming ADT
The optimal thresholds at which ADT must be stopped or resumed are empirical (95). The best candidates for
IAD have still not been completely defined (95,106,107), but are probably patients with locally advanced or
relapsing disease, provided a perfect response is obtained (see below). Nevertheless, several points are clear
(95,108):
•
IAD is based on intermittent castration. Thus, only drugs leading to castration should be considered
for use in IAD.
•
It is unclear if an LHRH agonist may be used alone, as published experiences are based on CAB. An
LHRH antagonist might be a valid alternative, provided clear results are obtained from randomised
trials.
•
The initial (induction) cycle must last between 6 and 9 months, otherwise testosterone recovery is
unlikely.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
85
•
•
•
•
•
The treatment is stopped only if patients have fulfilled all the following criteria:
o
well-informed and compliant patient
ono clinical progression, i.e. a clear PSA response, empirically defined as a PSA < 4 ng/mL in
metastatic disease, or 0.5 ng/mL in relapsing disease.
Strict follow-up must be applied once treatment has stopped, with clinical examination every 3-6
months (the more advanced the disease, the closer the follow-up). PSA should be measured by the
same laboratory to ensure standardisation of testing.
Treatment is resumed when the patient reaches either a clinical progression, or a PSA value above a
predetermined, empirically fixed threshold (usually 4 ng/mL in non-metastatic situations, or 10-15 ng/
mL in metastatic patients) (106).
The same treatment is used for at least 3-6 months.
Subsequent cycles of treatment are based on the same rules until the first sign of hormone-refractory
status.
In conclusion, IAD is currently widely offered to patients with PCa in various clinical settings, and its status
should no longer be regarded as investigational (LE: 2).
Increased duration of off-treatment periods in IAD
Recently, attempts have been made to increase the duration of the off-treatment periods in IAD. Although
hormonal manipulations using finasteride (109) were suggested, finasteride has never been tested in
randomised trials, and its use in PCa has been recently questioned (110). Instead, non-hormonal compounds
have been tested, such as a COX-2 inhibitor or anti-angiogenic drugs.
The first preliminary trial (111) included 44 relapsing patients after surgery, who were randomised to
intermittent bicalutamide alone or to etoricoxib in the off-treatment periods. With a median follow-up of 62
weeks, etoricoxib showed a clear benefit in prolonging the off-treatment period. The second, more mature,
study (112) randomised 159 patients, relapsing after local treatment, to two treatment arms: LHRH antagonist
for 6 months, followed by placebo or thalidomide, 200 mg daily. When PSA progression occurred, a cross-over
was done, using the same regimen. A clearly prolonged time to PSA progression was seen with thalidomide:
there was a non-significant difference during the first round (15 vs 9.6 months), but a highly significant
difference after the cross-over (17.1 vs 6.6 months, p = 0.0002). This finding was not linked to any hormonal
effect, based on the time taken to reach testosterone normalisation after the LHRH antagonist was stopped.
This proof of principle warrants further larger studies, as thalidomide, even with an acceptable tolerance,
required dose reduction in 47% of patients.
12.7.4 Immediate vs deferred ADT
There is still controversy over the most appropriate time to introduce hormonal therapy in patients with
advanced PCa. Should ADT be given immediately upon diagnosis in locally advanced and asymptomatic
metastatic disease or deferred until there are signs and symptoms of clinical progression? (This has been partly
discussed in Section 8.3.)
The controversy over whether immediate treatment with ADT has a positive effect on survival and
QoL has arisen because of the lack of properly conducted, randomised, controlled trials. Many of the trials are
methodologically flawed because of small size and underpowering, heterogeneity of patient enrolment with
advanced PCa (i.e. locally advanced, nodal and metastatic stages of disease), and variability in the hormonal
treatments administered and of follow-up schedules and modalities used.
Bearing these limitations in mind, the evidence for immediate versus deferred ADT is provided by
three systematic reviews of the literature (one of which is a meta-analysis). A report by the Agency for Health
Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) indicated a possible survival advantage for early ADT in single studies
where hormonal treatment was the primary therapy, while the combined analysis showed no significant benefit.
Furthermore, androgen suppression was shown to be the most cost-effective therapy if initiated after patients
had experienced symptoms from metastatic disease (81,113).
The Cochrane Library review extracted four, good-quality, randomised, controlled trials, i.e. namely
VACURG I and II studies (10,11), the MRC trial (114) and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)
7887 study (115), which were all conducted in the pre-PSA era. The studies included patients with advanced
PCa, who received early versus deferred ADT, either as primary therapy or adjuvant to radical prostatectomy
(but not to radiotherapy). According to the analysis, early androgen suppression significantly reduced disease
progression and complication rates due to the progression itself. However, it did not improve cancer-specific
survival and provided a relatively small benefit in OS, with an absolute risk reduction of 5.5% after 10 years
(116).
Since 2002, the level 1 evidence suggesting immediate ADT in every pN+ patient after a
prostatectomy has been questioned for several reasons. Some have been discussed elsewhere (see Section
86
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
9.7), such as the impact of a micronodal metastasis in a single node (117), which is far from being equivalent
to a massive nodal involvement as described in the Messing trial (115). Recently, the analysis of 719 patients
from the SEER database (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results, part of the US National Cancer Institute)
questioned the real impact of immediate ADT in pN+ patients after a radical prostatectomy (118).
In the PSA era, the EORTC 30891 study (119) has produced the same results, namely a small benefit
in OS, but no CSS benefit. Furthermore, only young patients with a high PSA might clearly benefit.
Based on a systematic review of the literature, recently published ASCO guidelines on initial hormonal
treatment for androgen-sensitive, metastatic, recurrent or progressive PCa concluded that no recommendation
can be made on when to start hormonal therapy in advanced asymptomatic PCa until data becomes available
from studies using modern diagnostic and biochemical tests and standardised follow-up schedules (72).
Based on meta-analyses published, treatment appears to be most cost-effective when started after
the onset of symptoms. Based on exploratory analysis, treatment with anti-androgen monotherapy does not
lead to a survival benefit in men with localised PCa managed with non-definitive therapy, and the impact is still
questionable after external beam therapy. This was explored in detail above with regard to the EPCP trials (see
Section 12.6.2.3).
For asymptomatic patients with locally or regionally advanced PCa who undergo radiotherapy,
several randomised controlled trials have produced good evidence to show that concomitant and/or adjuvant
hormonal therapy provides longer time-to-disease progression and/or longer OS than radiotherapy alone
followed by androgen suppression at progression (120-123) (LE: 1b).
12.8
Indications for hormonal therapy
Table 18 lists the indications for hormonal therapy.
Table 18: Indications for hormonal therapy
Hormonal therapy
Indications for castration
M1 symptomatic
M1 asymptomatic
N+
Locally advanced M0
• Locally advanced disease treated
with radiotherapy
• Locally advanced asymptomatic
unfit for local definitive treatment
Anti-androgens
Short-term administration
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
Benefits
LE
To palliate symptoms and to reduce the risk for potentially
catastrophic sequelae of advanced disease (spinal cord
compression, pathological fractures, ureteral obstruction,
extraskeletal metastasis)
Even without a controlled randomised trial, this is the standard
of care and must be applied and considered as level 1 evidence
Immediate castration to defer progression to a symptomatic
stage and prevent serious disease progression-related
complications (114)
An active clinical surveillance protocol might be an acceptable
option in clearly informed patients if survival is the main
objective
Immediate castration to prolong PFS and even OS (116)
Might be questioned in single micrometastasis after extended
lymph node dissection and radical prostatectomy (124)
Immediate castration to improve cancer-free survival
High-risk d’Amico: combined and prolonged ADT
Intermediate-risk d’Amico
– If low dose (< 75 Gy) radiotherapy: 6 months of ADT
– If high dose (> 75 Gy) radiotherapy: ADT questionable
Limited OS improvement not related to a CSS benefit (119)
1b
To reduce the risk of the ‘flare-up’ phenomenon in patients
with advanced metastatic disease who are to receive an LHRH
agonist (125,126)
1b
1
1b
3
1b
3
1b
1a
1b
2a
1a
87
Non-steroidal anti-androgen
monotherapy
Primary monotherapy as an alternative to castration in patients
with locally advanced PCa (T3-4, any N, or
any T)
No place in localised disease as a single-treatment modality
2a
Combined with radiotherapy: no clear recommendation is
possible at the present time
Combined with radical prostatectomy: no place so far in an
adjuvant setting
12.9
Contraindications for various therapies (Table 19)
Table 19 lists the contraindications for various therapies.
Table 19: Contraindications for various therapies.
Therapy
Bilateral orchiectomy
Oestrogens
LHRH agonists alone
Anti-androgens
Contraindications
Psychological reluctance to undergo surgical castration
Known cardiovascular disease
Patients with metastatic disease at high risk for clinical ‘flare up’ phenomenon
Localised PCa as primary therapy
12.10 Outcome
Outcome depends on the stage and grade of disease at diagnosis.
In M1 cases, the median OS ranges between 28 and 53 months (81); only 7% of patients with
metastatic cancer treated with hormonal therapy have been reported alive at 10 years or longer (127). Survival
is likely to depend on the PSA level at diagnosis, the Gleason score, the volume of metastatic disease, and the
presence of bony symptoms.
In locally advanced M0 patients, the median OS is frequently reported to exceed 10 years (82).
12.11 Side-effects, QoL, and cost of hormonal therapy
The many deleterious side-effects of long-term ADT have been well known for years. Some can have a
detrimental effect on QoL, especially in young men, while others may contribute to an increased risk of serious
health concerns associated with ageing.
Many patients with PCa for whom long-term ADT is indicated are still young and physically and
sexually active. Quality of life is an issue of paramount importance when considering the various hormonal
treatment options. Thus, in selected patients, monotherapy with a non-steroidal anti-androgen (e.g.
bicalutamide) is becoming more popular because it maintains normal (or even higher) serum testosterone levels
and has a good tolerability profile.
12.11.1 Sexual function
Loss of libido and erectile dysfunction are well-known side-effects of hormonal therapy. The management of
erectile dysfunction is not specific.
12.11.2 Hot flashes
Hot flashes are probably the most common side-effect of ADT. They appear 3 months after starting ADT,
persist long term in most patients, and have a significant impact on QoL (128). Treatments include hormonal
therapy and antidepressants.
12.11.2.1 Hormonal therapy
Oestrogen-receptor modulators or low-dose oestrogen therapies, e.g. DES, 0.5-1 mg/day, reduce the
frequency and severity of hot flashes. Both treatments carry a risk of cardiovascular complications (129).
Soya phytoestrogens have shown efficacy for hot flashes in breast cancer patients (130), but have not been
evaluated in men. Progesterone-based treatments, such as megestrol acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate,
and CPA, have also demonstrated efficacy, with 80% of patients showing an improvement with CPA (131) or
chlormadinone (132).
12.11.2.2 Antidepressants
Antidepressants may have some efficacy. For example, venlafaxine (a non-specific selective noradrenaline
and serotonin reuptake inhibitor) has shown efficacy in breast cancer patients, while the selective serotonin
88
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
reuptake inhibitor, sertraline, appears to be effective in men with PCa (133). Recently, a randomised trial (n =
919) compared three drugs considered to be effective: venlafaxine, 75 mg daily, medroxyprogesterone, 20 mg
daily, or CPA, 100 mg daily (134). After 6 months of LHRH, only 311 men had significant hot flushes and were
randomized. Venlafaxine was clearly inferior compared to the hormonal agents, which showed similar efficacy
to each other.
Other products have also been tested, including clonidine and veralipride, and even acupuncture
(135). With a placebo effect influencing up to 30% of patients (136), few treatments are approved for the
control of hot flashes in men with PCa. There is a lack of large, prospective randomised controlled trials in this
area.
12.11.3 Other systemic side-effects of ADT
More recently, other systemic side-effects have been described and require increased attention, including bone
problems, obesity and sarcopenia, lipid alterations and insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and
cardiovascular disease (137).
12.11.3.1 Non-metastatic bone fractures
Androgen deprivation therapy increases the risk of non-metastatic bone fracture as a result of increased bone
turnover and decreased BMD in a time-dependent manner. This leads to an increased risk of fracture of up to
45% relative risk long term (138). This is an important side-effect, as hip fractures in men are associated with a
significant risk of death (139). Increased exercise and calcium supplementation are protective.
Bisphosphonates
Recently, bisphosphonates such as pamidronate, alendronate or zoledronic acid have been shown to increase
BMD in hip and spine by up to 7% in 1 year. The optimal regimen for zoledronic acid is unclear. One study
recommends treatment every 3 weeks (140), while another trial has produced similar results with an annual
injection (141). The optimal regimen is very important because of the risk of jaw necrosis, which may be both
dose- and time-related (142). The initial BMD could be used to guide the choice of regimen (143). Thus, a
3-month injection might be given in osteoporotic patients, for whom a yearly injection is likely to provide
insufficient protection.
As previously observed in breast cancer, a significant OS benefit has recently been demonstrated
for biphosphonates in PCa, particularly oral first-generation clodronate compared to placebo. After at least
10 years of follow-up, an absolute 8% increase in OS at 8 years was observed in a clodronate-treated group
of PCa patients, who had an OS of 22% versus 14% in the placebo group (144). The OS benefit was only
apparent for M1, but not for M0, patients. This result highlighted again the potential impact of bone-targeted
drugs and the need for continuous trials, such as the Zeus trial using a more recent biphosphonate.
Denosumab
In 2009, a major advance in bone protection was made with the introduction of denosumab, a fully human
monoclonal antibody against RANKL, which is a key mediator for osteoclast function, activation and survival.
A total of 1,468 men with non-metastatic PCa receiving ADT were randomised to denosumab, 60 mg
subcutaneous every 6 months, or placebo (145). The primary end-point was the percentage change in lumbar
spine BMD at 2 years. Denosumab was associated with 5.6% increase in the lumbar BMD versus 1% decrease
in the placebo arm. There were also significant BMD increases at the total hip, femoral neck and distal third
of the radius. The vertebral fracture rate was less in the denosumab-treated group versus the placebo-treated
group (1.5% vs 3.9%, p = 0.006). This benefit was similar whatever the age (< or > 70 years), the duration
or type of ADT, the initial BMD, the weight or the initial BMI (143). This benefit was not associated with any
significant toxicity, as rates of adverse events were the same in both groups, without any jaw osteonecrosis
or delayed healing in vertebral fractures. This compound may therefore represent a major advance in bone
protection.
Lifestyle changes
Before starting long-term ADT, patients should be encouraged to adopt lifestyle changes, e.g. increased
physical activity, cessation of smoking, decreased alcohol consumption and normalisation of their body
mass index (BMI). A precise evaluation of BMD should be performed by dual X-ray absorptiometry before
starting long-term ADT. An initial low BMD (T-score above 2.5, or above 1 if other risk factors are present)
indicates a high risk of subsequent non-metastatic fracture, suggesting the need for early use of preventive
bisphosphonate therapy.
Obesity and sarcopenia
Obesity and sarcopenia are common and often occur early, during the first year of ADT. There is an expected
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
89
increase in body fat mass by up to 10%, and a decrease in lean tissue mass by up to 3% (146). Both changes
are linked to an increased risk of fracture.
12.11.3.2 Lipid levels
Lipid alterations are also frequent, and occur as early as the first 3 months of treatment (146). Androgen
deprivation therapy also decreases insulin sensitivity and increases fasting plasma insulin levels (147), which is
a marker of insulin resistance. Once again, exercise must be recommended as a protective tool.
12.11.3.3 Metabolic syndrome
Metabolic syndrome is an association of independent cardiovascular disease risk factors, often associated with
insulin resistance. These include:
•
waist circumference > 102 cm;
•
serum triglyceride > 1.7 mmol/L;
•
blood pressure > 130/80 mmHg;
•
HDL cholesterol < 1 mmol/L;
•
glycaemia > 6.1 mmol/L.
The prevalence of metabolic syndrome is higher during ADT compared with untreated men (148).
12.11.3.4 Cardiovascular disease
Androgen deprivation therapy has been associated with an increased risk of diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular
disease, and myocardial infarction in one study (150), and with a 20% increased risk of new cardiovascular
disease after 1 year of treatment in another (150). Recently, the analysis of the RTOG 92-02 data confirmed
the increase in cardiovascular risk (151), with no relationship with the duration of ADT. However, these
observations have been much discussed recently, as no increased cardiovascular mortality was demonstrated
in RTOG 8610 (152), EORTC 30891 (120) or EORTC 22863 (66).
In summary, if even 6 or fewer months of ADT might be associated with increased cardiovascular
morbidity, the data on cardiovascular mortality are so far inconsistent. Again, prevention is associated with
non-specific measures, such as loss of weight, increased exercise, better nutrition and the cessation of
smoking.
12.12 Quality of life (QoL)
Data on QoL during hormone treatment are scant because of a lack of solid evidence. The only large,
prospective, randomised study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial including 739 patients with M1 PCa,
which compared orchiectomy + flutamide versus orchiectomy + placebo. The QoL was assessed in the first 6
months of treatment. Combined therapy resulted in a lower QoL, with statistically significant differences in two
QoL parameters, namely more frequent diarrhoea and worse emotional functioning, compared with castration
alone (153).
A prospective, non-randomised, observational study including 144 patients with locally advanced PCa
or PSA failure after definitive local treatment showed that patients who received immediate ADT (by means
of bilateral orchiectomy, LHRH agonist or CAB) reported a lower overall QoL (increased fatigue, emotional
distress, and decreased physical functioning) than patients in the deferred hormone treatment arm (154)
(LE: 2a).
A retrospective, non-randomised study included 431 patients with stage PCa who received
orchiectomy or LHRH agonists as their primary therapy within 12 months of initial diagnosis. The study
assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes at 12-months’ follow-up. Men receiving LHRH
agonists reported more worry and physical discomfort and poorer overall health, and were less likely to believe
themselves free of cancer than were orchiectomised patients. The stage at diagnosis had no significant
independent effect on health outcome. However, the study was insufficiently powered (155) (LE: 2b).
A recent, small, randomised, controlled trial evaluated the HRQoL of patients with non-localised PCa
allocated to leuprorelin, goserelin, CPA or no treatment at 1-year follow-up. Both sexual and cognitive function
significantly declined in men on all forms of androgen suppression, while emotional distress significantly
increased in those assigned to CPA and no treatment (156) (LE: 1b).
Intermittent androgen deprivation may be associated with an improved overall QoL based on the
normal testosterone levels during the off-treatment periods. So far, the results are inconclusive, showing either
no benefit, or only a marginal one, in QoL.
As for LHRH agonists, QoL was evaluated in the previously mentioned studies of bicalutamide
monotherapy using a specific questionnaire covering 10 domains (sexual interest, sexual function, physical
capacity, emotional well-being, vitality, social function, activity limitation, pain, bed disability and overall health).
Separate analyses of data for M0 and M1 patients were performed at 12-months’ follow-up. In both patient
categories, bicalutamide showed a significant advantage over castration in the domains of physical capacity
90
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
and sexual interest (not sexual function) (59) (LE: 1b).
A further post hoc analysis, including only patients with sexual interest at study entry, found that
significantly more patients receiving bicalutamide, 150 mg/day, maintained their interest in sex and felt that
they were still sexually attractive than did those randomised to castration (157,158).
Data on QoL are also available from an early report from Boccardo et al. (159) and support the
findings of the two larger combined trials. More men in the bicalutamide group than in the castration group
reported a preserved libido and erectile function.
Furthermore, a recent, small, prospective, randomised trial, including 103 patients with localised or
locally advanced PCa, who received bicalutamide 150 mg/day or medical castration, evaluated the changes in
BMD after 96 weeks of treatment and showed it to be maintained with bicalutamide therapy (160) (LE: 1b).
The most common side-effects during non-steroidal anti-androgen monotherapy are gynaecomastia
and breast pain, which are caused by an imbalance in the androgen:oestrogen ratio within the breast tissue.
In bicalutamide studies, these events were reported by up to 66% and 73% of patients, respectively, and may
lead to treatment cessation in 16.4% of patients.
12.13 Cost-effectiveness of hormonal therapy options
A recent formal meta-analysis and literature review evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various long-term
androgen suppression options in advanced PCa (e.g. bilateral orchiectomy, DES, LHRH-agonist, non-steroidal
anti-androgen monotherapy, and CAB using non-steroidal anti-androgens).
For the analysis, a sophisticated statistical model was generated, assuming the base case at entry to
be a 65-year-old man with a clinically evident, local recurrence of PCa and no distant metastases, followed for
a 20-year time horizon. The study concluded that, for men who can accept it, bilateral orchiectomy is the most
cost-effective form of ADT providing a higher quality-adjusted survival, while CAB is the least economically
attractive option, yielding small health benefits for a high relative cost. Furthermore, the greatest QoL gains and
least costs may be obtained by starting ADT when symptoms from distant metastases have occurred (114)
(LE: 1a).
Finally, once ADT is started, if a clear response is obtained (see Section 12.3.3), then IAD might be a
useful way to lower treatment costs.
12.14 Guidelines for hormonal therapy in prostate cancer
LE
In advanced PCa, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) delays progression, prevents potentially
catastrophic complications, and palliates symptoms effectively, but does not prolong survival.
In advanced PCa, all forms of castration used as monotherapy (e.g. orchiectomy, LHRH and DES)
have equivalent efficacy.
Non-steroidal anti-androgen monotherapy (e.g. bicalutamide) is an alternative to castration in patients
with locally advanced disease.
In metastatic PCa, the addition of a non-steroidal anti-androgen to castration (CAB) results in a small
advantage in OS over castration alone, but is associated with increased adverse events, reduced QoL,
and high costs.
Intermittent ADT should no longer be regarded as experimental, even though long-term data from
prospective clinical trials are still awaited. ‘Minimal’ ADT should, however, continue to be seen as
experimental.
In advanced PCa, immediate ADT (given at diagnosis) significantly reduces disease progression, as
well as the complication rate due to progression itself, compared with deferred ADT (delivered at
symptomatic progression). However, the survival benefit is at best marginal and not related to cancerspecific survival.
Bilateral orchiectomy might be the most cost-effective form of ADT, especially if initiated after the
occurrence of symptoms from metastatic disease.
1b
1b
2a
1a
2a
1b
3
12.15 References
1.
2.
3.
Huggins C, Hodges CV. Studies on prostatic cancer. I. The effect of castration, of estrogen and
of androgen injection on serum phosphatase in metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 2002
Feb;167(2P 2):948-51, discussion 952.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11905923
Huggins C, Stevens RE Jr, Hodges CV. Studies on prostate cancer. II. The effect of castration on
advanced carcinoma of the prostate gland. Arch Surg 1941;43:209-23.
McLeod DG. Hormonal therapy: historical perspective to future directions. Urology 2003 Feb;61(2
Suppl 1):3-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12667881
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
91
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
92
Walsh PC. Physiologic basis for hormonal therapy in carcinoma of the prostate. Urol Clin North Am
1975 Feb;2(1):125-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/48206
Silver RI, Wiley EL, Davis DL, et al. Expression and regulation of steroid 5-a-reductase 2 in prostate
disease. J Urol 1994 Aug;152(2 Pt 1):433-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7516976
Oefelein MG, Feng A, Scolieri MJ, et al. Reassessment of the definition of castrate levels of
testosterone: implications for clinical decision making. Urology 2000 Dec;56(6):1021-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11113751
Desmond AD, Arnold AJ, Hastie KJ. Subcapsular orchiectomy under local anaesthesia. Technique,
results and implications. Br J Urol 1988 Feb;61(2):143-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3349279
Melton LJ 3rd, Alothman KI, Achenbach SJ, et al. Decline in bilateral orchiectomy for prostate cancer
in Olmsted county, Minnesota, 1956-2000. Mayo Clinic Proc 2001 Dec;76(12):1199-203.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11761500
Oh WK. The evolving role of estrogen therapy in prostate cancer. Clin Prostate Cancer 2002
Sep;1(2):81-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15046698
Byar DP. Proceedings: the Veterans Administration Co-operative Urological Research Group studies
of cancer of the prostate. Cancer 1973 Nov;32(5):1126-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4585929
Jordan WP Jr, Blackard CE, Byar DP. Reconsideration of orchiectomy in the treatment of advanced
prostatic carcinoma. South Med J 1977;70(12):1411-3.
Scherr DS, Pitts WR Jr. The non-steroidal effects of diethylstilbestrol: the rationale for androgen
deprivation therapy without estrogen deprivation in the treatment of prostate cancer. J Urol 2003
Nov;170(5):1703-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14532759
Hedlund PO, Ala-Opas M, Brekkan E, et al; Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group. Parenteral estrogen
versus combined androgen deprivation in the treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer–Scandinavian
Prostatic Cancer Group (SPCG) Study No. 5. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2002;36(6):405-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12623503
Hedlund PO, Damber JE, Hagerman I, et al; SPCG-5 Study Group. Parenteral estrogen versus
combined androgen deprivation in the treatment of metastatic prostatic cancer: part 2. Final
evaluation of the Scandinavian Prostatic Cancer Group (SPCG) Study No. 5. Scand J Urol Nephrol
2008;42(3):220-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18432528
Klotz L, McNeill I, Fleshner N. A phase 1-2 trial of diethylstilbestrol plus low dose warfarin in advanced
prostate carcinoma. J Urol 1999 Jan;161(1):169-72.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10037391
Farrugia D, Ansell W, Singh M, et al. Stilboestrol plus adrenal suppression as salvage treatment for
patients failing treatment with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogues and orchidectomy.
BJU Int 2000 Jun;85(9):1069-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10848697
Rosenbaum E, Wygoda M, Gips M, et al. Diethylstilbestrol is an active agent in prostate cancer
patients after failure to complete androgen blockade. Proc ASCO 2000. J Clin Oncol 2000;349:1372A.
http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_
view&confID=2&abstractID=201964
Seidenfeld J, Samson DJ, Hasselblad V, et al. Single-therapy androgen suppression in men
with advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2000
Apr;132(7):566-77.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10744594
Oefelein MG, Resnick MI. Effective testosterone suppression for patients with prostate cancer: is there
a best castration? Urology 2003 Aug;62(2):207-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12893320
Agarwal DK, Costello AJ, Peters J, et al. Differential response of prostate specific antigen to
testosterone surge after luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogue in prostate cancer and
benign prostatic hypertrophy. BJU Int 2000 Apr;85(6):690-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759667
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29. 30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Schally AV. Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogs: their impact on the control of
tumourigenesis. Peptides 1999;20(10):1247-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10573298
Limonta P, Montagnani MM, Moretti RM. LHRH analogues as anticancer agents: pituitary and
extrapituitary sites of action. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2001 Apr;10(4):709-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11281820
Oefelein MG, Cornum R. Failure to achieve castrate levels of testosterone during luteinizing hormone
releasing hormone agonist therapy: the case for monitoring serum testosterone and a treatment
decision algorithm. J Urol 2000 Sep;164(3 Pt 1):726-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10953134
Bubley GJ. Is the flare phenomenon clinically significant? Urology 2001 Aug;58(2 Suppl 1):5-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11502435
McLeod DG, Zinner N, Tomera K, et al. A phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomized study of
abarelix versus leuprolide acetate in men with prostate cancer. Urology 2001 Nov;58(5):756-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11711355
Trachtenberg J, Gittleman M, Steidle C, et al. A phase 3, multicentre, open label, randomized study
of abarelix versus leuprolide plus daily antiandrogen in men with prostate cancer. J Urol 2002
Apr;167(4):1670-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11912385
FDA/CDER. FDA approves new drug for advanced prostate cancer. November 25, 2003.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/2003/ANS01268.html
Van Poppel H, Tombal B, de la Rosette JJ, et al. Degarelix: a novel gonadotropin-releasing hormone
(GnRH) receptor blocker–results from a 1-yr, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 dosage-finding study
in the treatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008 Oct;54(4):805-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18538469
Klotz L, Boccon-Gibod L, Shore ND, et al. The efficacy and safety of degarelix: a 12-month,
comparative, randomized, open-label, parallel-group phase III study in patients with prostate cancer.
BJU Int 2008 Dec;102(11):1531-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19035858
Anderson J. The role of antiandrogen monotherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2003
Mar;91(5):455-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12603397
Moffat LE. Comparison of Zoladex, diethylstilboestrol and cyproterone acetate treatment in advanced
prostate cancer. Eur Urol 1990;18(Suppl 3):26-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2151272
Thorpe SC, Azmatullah S, Fellows GJ, et al. A prospective, randomized study to compare goserelin
acetate (Zoladex) versus cyproterone acetate (Cyprostat) versus a combination of the two in the
treatment of metastatic prostatic carcinoma. Eur Urol 1996;29(1):47-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8821690
Pavone Macaluso M, de Voogt HJ, Viggiano G, et al. Comparison of diethylstilbestrol, cyproterone
acetate and medroxyprogesterone acetate in the treatment of advanced prostatic cancer: final
analysis of a randomized phase III trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of
Cancer Urological Group. J Urol 1986 Sep;136(3):624-31.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2942707
Mahler C, Verhelst J, Denis L. Clinical pharmacokinetics of the antiandrogens and their efficacy in
prostate cancer. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998 May;34(5):405-17.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9592622
Schroder FH, Whelan P, de Reijke TM, et al. Metastatic prostate cancer treated by flutamide versus
cyproterone acetate. Final analysis of the ‘European Organization for Research and Treatment of
Cancer’ (EORTC) Protocol 30892. Eur Urol 2004 Apr;45(4):457-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15041109
Johnson DE, Kaesler KE, Ayala AG. Megestrol acetate for treatment of advanced carcinoma of the
prostate. J Surg Oncol 1975;7(1):9-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1177459
Geller J, Albert J, Yen SSC. Treatment of advanced cancer of the prostate with megestrol acetate.
Urology 1978 Nov;12(5):537-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/153029
Bonomi P, Pessis D, Bunting N, et al. Megestrol acetate use as primary hormonal therapy in stage D
prostatic cancer. Semin Oncol 1985 Mar;12(1 Suppl 1):36-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3975650
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
93
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
94
Patel SR, Kvols LK, Hahn RG, et al. A phase II randomized trial of megestrol acetate or
dexamethasone in treatment of hormonally refractory advanced carcinoma of the prostate. Cancer
1990 Aug;66(4):655-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2201425
Dawson NA, Conaway M, Halabi S, et al. A randomized study comparing standard versus moderately
high dose megestrol acetate for patients with advanced prostate carcinoma. Cancer and Leukemia
Group B Study 9181. Cancer 2000 Feb;88(4):825-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10679652
Pavone-Macaluso M, Schröder FH, de Voogt HJ, et al. EORTC protocol 30761: a randomized
study of non-metastatic and metastatic prostatic cancer treated by cyproterone acetate versus
diethylstilbestrol and medroxyprogesterone acetate. European Organization for Research on
Treatment of Cancer Urological Group. Prog Clin Biol Res 1989;303:111-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2528735
Iversen P. Antiandrogen monotherapy: indications and results. Urology 2002;60(3 Suppl 1):64-71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12231053
McLeod DG. Tolerability of non-steroidal antiandrogens in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer.
Oncologist 1997;2(1):18-27.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10388026
Dole EJ, Holdsworth MT. Nilutamide: an antiandrogen for the treatment of prostate cancer. Ann
Pharmacother 1997 Jan;31(12):66-75.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8997470
Decensi AU, Boccardo F, Guarneri D, et al. Monotherapy with nilutamide, a pure non-steroidal
antiandrogen, in untreated patients with metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. The Italian Prostatic
Cancer Project. J Urol 1991 Jan;146(2):377-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1856935
Dijkman GA, Janknegt RA, de Reijke TM, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of nilutamide plus
castration in advanced prostate cancer, and the significance of early prostate specific antigen
normalization. International Anandron Study Group. J Urol 1997 Jul;158(1):160-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9186345
Desai A, Stadler WM, Vogelzang N. Nilutamide: possible utility as a second-line hormonal agent.
Urology 2001 Dec;58(6):1016-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11744479
Kassouf W, Tanguay S, Aprikian AG. Nilutamide as second line hormone therapy for prostate cancer
after androgen ablation fails. J Urol 2003 May;169(5):1742-44.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12686822
Narayana AS, Loening SA, Culp DA. Flutamide in the treatment of metastatic carcinoma of the
prostate. Br J Urol 1981 Apr;53(2):152-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7237048
Sogani, Vagaiwala MR, Whitmore WF Jr. Experience with flutamide in patients with advanced
prostatic cancer without prior endocrine therapy. Cancer 1984 Aug;54(4):744-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6378356
Lundgren R. Flutamide as primary treatment for metastatic prostatic cancer. Br J Urol 1987
Feb;59(2):156-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3828712
Delaere KP, Van Thillo EL. Flutamide monotherapy as primary treatment in advanced prostatic
carcinoma. Semin Oncol 1991 Oct;18(5 Suppl 6):13-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1948117
Pavone Macaluso M. Flutamide monotherapy versus combined androgen blockade in advanced
prostate cancer. Interim report of an Italian multicentre, randomized study. SIU 23rd Congress
1994:354A.
http://www.siu-urology.org/
Boccon-Gibod L, Fournier G, Bottet P, et al. Flutamide versus orchidectomy in the treatment of
metastatic prostate carcinoma. Eur Urol 1997;32(4):391-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9412794
Tyrrell CJ, Denis L, Newling DWW, et al. Casodex 10-200 mg daily, used as monotherapy for patients
with advanced prostate cancer. An overview of the efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics from
three phase II dose-ranging studies. Casodex Study Group. Eur Urol 1998;33(1):39-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9471040
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
Kolvenbag GJ, Nash A. Bicalutamide dosages used in the treatment of prostate cancer. Prostate 1999
Apr;39(1):47-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10221266
Tyrrell CJ, Kaisary AV, Iversen P, et al. A randomized comparison of ‘Casodex’ (bicalutamide) 150 mg
monotherapy versus castration in the treatment of metastatic and locally advanced prostate cancer.
Eur Urol 1998;33(5):447-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9643663
Kaisary AV, Iversen P, Tyrrell CJ, et al. Is there a role for antiandrogen monotherapy in patients with
metastatic prostate cancer? Prost Cancer Prost Dis 2001;4(4):196-203.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12497018
Iversen P, Tyrrell CJ, Kaisary AV, et al. Bicalutamide monotherapy compared with castration in
patients with non-metastatic locally advanced prostate cancer: 6.3 years of follow up. J Urol 2000
Nov;164(5):1579-82.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11025708
Fourcade RO, Chatelain C, Poterre M, et al. An open multicentre randomized study to compare the
effect and safety of ‘Casodex’ (bicalutamide) 150 mg monotherapy with castration plus nilutamide in
metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol 1998;33(Suppl 1):88,349A.
Boccardo F, Barichello M, Battaglia M, et al. Bicalutamide monotherapy versus flutamide plus
goserelin in prostate cancer: updated results of a multicentric trial. Eur Urol 2002 Nov;42(5):481-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12429158
Wirth MP, See WA, McLeod DG, et al; Casodex Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group. Bicalutamide
150 mg in addition to standard care in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer:
results from the second analysis of the early prostate cancer programme at median followup of 5.4
years. J Urol 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1865-70.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15540740
McLeod DG, Iversen P, See WA, et al; Casodex Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group. Bicalutamide
150 mg plus standard care vs standard care alone for early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006
Feb;97(2):247-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16430622
Wirth M, Tyrrell C, Delaere K, et al. Bicalutamide (Casodex) 150 mg plus standard care in early nonmetastatic prostate cancer: results from Early Prostate Cancer Trial 24 at a median 7 years’ follow-up.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2007;10(1):87-93.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17102802
Sternberg CN. Apples and oranges. Re: 7.4-year update of the ongoing bicalutamide Early Prostate
Cancer (EPC) trial programme. BJU Int 2006 Mar;97(3):435-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469001
Bolla L, Collette G, Van Tienhoven P, et al. Ten year results of long term adjuvant androgen
deprivation with goserelin in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy:
a phase III EORTC study. Proceedings of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and
Oncology 50th Annual Meeting. Int Journal Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008;72(1 Suppl 1):S30-S31,
abstract 65.
Bolla M, van Poppel H, Collette L, et al; European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial
22911). Lancet 2005 Aug;366(9485):572-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16099293
Pilepich MV, Winter K, Lawton CA, et al. Androgen suppression adjuvant to definitive radiotherapy
in prostate carcinoma–long-term results of phase III RTOG 85-31. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005
Apr;61(5):1285-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15817329
McLeod DG, See WA, Klimberg I, et al. The bicalutamide 150 mg early prostate cancer program:
findings of the North American trial at 7.7-year median followup. J Urol 2006 Jul;176(1):75-80.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16753373
Iversen P. Orchidectomy and oestrogen therapy revisited. Eur Urol 1998;34(Suppl 3):7-11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9854189
See WA, Tyrrell CJ; CASODEX Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group. The addition of bicalutamide
150 mg to radiotherapy significantly improves overall survival in men with locally advanced prostate
cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2006 Aug;132(Suppl 1):S7-S16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16896884
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
95
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78. 79. 80. 81. 82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
96
Loblaw DA, Mendelson DS, Talcott JA, et al: American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society
of Clinical Oncology recommendations for the initial hormonal management of androgen-sensitive
metastatic, recurrent, or progressive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004 Jul;22(14):2927-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15184404
Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Battaglia M, et al. Evaluation of tamoxifen and anastrozole in the prevention
of gynecomastia and breast pain induced by bicalutamide monotherapy of prostate cancer. J Clin
Oncol 2005 Feb;23(4):808-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15681525
Fradet Y, Egerdie B, Andersen M, et al. Tamoxifen as prophylaxis for prevention of gynaecomastia
and breast pain associated with bicalutamide 150 mg monotherapy in patients with prostate cancer: a
randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-response study. Eur Urol 2007 Jul;52(1):106-14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17270340
Bedognetti D, Rubagotti A, Conti G, et al. An open, randomised, multicentre, phase 3 trial comparing
the efficacy of two tamoxifen schedules in preventing gynaecomastia induced by bicalutamide
monotherapy in prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol 2010 Feb;57(2):238-45.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481335
Dicker AP. The safety and tolerability of low-dose irradiation for the management of gynaecomastia
caused by antiandrogen monotherapy. Lancet Oncol 2003 Jan;4(1):30-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12517537
Van Poppel H, Tyrrell CJ, Haustermans K, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of radiotherapy as treatment
for bicalutamide-induced gynaecomastia and breast pain in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2005 May;47(5):
587-92.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15826748
Smith MR, Goode M, Zietman AL, et al. Bicalutamide monotherapy versus leuprolide monotherapy
for prostate cancer: effects on bone mineral density and body composition. J Clin Oncol 2004
Jul;22(13):2546-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15226323
Wadhwa VK, Weston R, Mistry R, et al. Long-term changes in bone mineral density and predicted
fracture risk in patients receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, with stratification
of treatment based on presenting values. BJU Int 2009 Sep;104(6):800-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19338564
Moul JW. Twenty years of controversy surrounding combined androgen blockade for advanced
prostate cancer. Cancer 2009 Aug;115(15):3376-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19484788 (no abstract)
Seidenfeld J, Samson DJ, Aronson N, et al. Relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of methods
of androgen suppression in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Evidence Report/Technology
Assessment No. 4. AHCPR Publication No. 99-E0012, May 1999, Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat1.chapter.5028
[No authors listed] Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Maximum androgen blockade in
advanced prostate cancer: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 2000 Apr;355(9214):1491-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10801170
Schmitt B, Bennett CL, Seidenfeld J, et al. Maximal androgen blockade for advanced prostate cancer.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;2:D001526.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796804
Schmitt B, Wilt TJ, Schellhammer PF, et al. Combined androgen blockade with non-steroidal
antiandrogens for advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review. Urology 2001 Apr;57(4):727-32.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11306391
Samson DJ, Seidenfeld J, Schmitt B, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of monotherapy
compared with combined androgen blockade for patients with advanced prostate carcinoma. Cancer
2002 Jul;95(2):361-76.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12124837
Collette L, Studer UE, Schroder FH, et al. Why phase III trials of maximal androgen blockade versus
castration in M1 prostate cancer rarely show statistically significant differences. Prostate 2001
Jun;48(1):29-39.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11391684
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
87. 88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95. 96.
97.
98. 99. 100.
101.
102.
Akaza H, Hinotsu S, Usami M, et al; Study Group for the Combined Androgen Blockade Therapy of
Prostate Cancer. Combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide for advanced prostate cancer:
long-term follow-up of a phase 3, double-blind, randomized study for survival. Cancer 2009
Aug;115(15):3437-45.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19536889
Fleshner NE, Trachtenberg J. Combination finasteride and flutamide in advanced carcinoma of the
prostate: effective therapy with minimal side-effects. J Urol 1995 Nov;154(5):1645-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7563310
Fleshner NE, Fair WR. Anti-androgenic effects of combination finasteride plus flutamide in patients
with prostatic carcinoma. Br J Urol 1996 Dec;78(6):907-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9014718
Ornstein DK, Rao GS, Johnson B, et al. Combined finasteride and flutamide therapy in men with
advanced prostate cancer. Urology 1996 Dec;48(6):901-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8973674
Brufsky A, Fontaine-Rothe P, Berlane K, et al. Finasteride and flutamide as potency-sparing androgenablative therapy for advanced adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Urology 1997 Jun;49(6):913-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9187700
Kirby R, Robertson C, Turkes A, et al. Finasteride in association with either flutamide or goserelin as
combination hormonal therapy in patients with stage M1 carcinoma of the prostate gland. International
Prostate Health Council (IPHC) Trial Study Group. Prostate 1999 Jul;40(2):105-14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10386471
Oh WK, Manola J, Bittman L, et al. Finasteride and flutamide therapy in patients with advanced
prostate cancer: response to subsequent castration and long-term follow-up. Urology 2003 Jul;62(1):
99-104.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12837431
Bruchovsky N, Rennie PS, Coldman AJ, et al. Effects of androgen withdrawal on the stem cell
composition of the Shionogi carcinoma. Cancer Res 1990 Apr;50(8):2275-82.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2317815
Abrahamsson PA. Potential benefits of intermittent androgen suppression therapy in the treatment of
prostate cancer: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2010 Jan;57(1):49-59.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19683858
Hussain M, Tangen CM, Higano C, et al; Southwest Oncology Group Trial 9346 (INT-0162). Absolute
prostate-specific antigen value after androgen deprivation is a strong independent predictor of survival
in new metastatic prostate cancer: data from Southwest Oncology Group Trial 9346 (INT-0162). J Clin
Oncol 2006 Aug;24(24):3984-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16921051
Lane TM, Ansell W, Farrugia D, et al. Long-term outcomes in patients with prostate cancer managed
with intermittent androgen suppression. Urol Int 2004;73(2):117-22.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15331894
Mottet N, Goussard M, Loulidi S, et al. Intermittent versus continuous maximal androgen blockade in
metastatic (D2) prostate cancer patients. A randomized trial. Eur Urol Suppl 2009;8(4):131, abstract
44.
Verhagen PCMS, Wissenburg LD, Wildhagen MF, et al. Quality of life effects of intermittent and
continuous hormonal therapy by cyproterone acetate (CPA) for metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol
Suppl 2008;7(3):206, abstract 541.
Tunn UW, Canepa G, Hillger H, et al. Intermittent androgen deprivation in patients with PSA-relapse
after radical prostatectomy–final results of a European randomized prospective phase-III clinical trial,
AUO study AP 06/95, EC 507. American Urological Association 2007, abstract 600.
http://www.auanet.org/content/press/press_releases/article.cfm?articleNo=18
de Leval J, Boca P, Yousef E, et al. Intermittent versus continuous total androgen blockade in
the treatment of patients with advanced hormone-naive prostate cancer: results of a prospective
randomized multicenter trial. Clin Prostate Cancer 2002 Dec;1(3):163-71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15046691
Miller K, Steiner U, Lingnau A, et al. Randomised prospective study of intermittent versus continuous
androgen suppression in advanced prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;Part 1;25(18S), abstract 5015.
http://www.asco.org/ASCO/Abstracts+%26+Virtual+Meeting/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_
view&confID=47&abstractID=33936
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
97
103. 104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110. 111. 112. 113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
98
Calais da Silva FE, Bono AV, Whelan P, et al. Intermittent androgen deprivation for locally advanced
and metastatic prostate cancer: results from a randomised phase 3 study of the South European
Uroncological Group. Eur Urol 2009 Jun;55(6):1269-77.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19249153
Irani J, Celhay O, Hubert J, et al; Association for Research in Urological Oncology. Continuous versus
six months a year maximal androgen blockade in the management of prostate cancer: a randomised
study. Eur Urol 2008 Aug;54(2):382-91.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339475
Higano C, Shields A, Wood N, et al. Bone mineral density in patients with prostate cancer without
bone metastases treated with intermittent androgen suppression. Urology 2004 Dec;64(6):1182-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15596194
Shaw GL, Wilson P, Cuzick J, et al. International study into the use of intermittent hormone therapy in
the treatment of carcinoma of the prostate: a meta-analysis of 1446 patients. BJU Int 2007 May;99(5):
1056-65.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17346277
Salonen AJ, Viitanen J, Lundstedt S, et al; FinnProstate Group. Finnish multicenter study comparing
intermittent to continuous androgen deprivation for advanced prostate cancer: interim analysis of
prognostic markers affecting initial response to androgen deprivation. J Urol 2008 Sep;180(3):915-9;
discussion 919-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18635219
Boccon-Gibod L, Hammerer P, Madersbacher S, et al. The role of intermittent androgen deprivation in
prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007 Oct;100(4):738-43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17662079
Scholz MC, Jennrich RI, Strum SB, et al. Intermittent use of testosterone inactivating pharmaceuticals
using finasteride prolongs the time off period. J Urol 2006 May;175(5):1673-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16600727
Wang Y, Gupta S, Hua V, et al. Prolongation of off-cycle interval by finasteride is not associated with
survival improvement in intermittent androgen deprivation therapy in LNCaP tumor model. Prostate
2010 Feb 1;70(2):147-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19739129
Di Silverio F, Sciarra A, Gentile V. Etoricoxib and intermittent androgen deprivation therapy in patients
with biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2008 May;71(5):947-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18279940
Figg WD, Hussain MH, Gulley JL, et al. A double-blind randomized crossover study of oral thalidomide
versus placebo for androgen dependent prostate cancer treated with intermittent androgen ablation. J
Urol 2009 Mar;181(3):1104-13; discussion 1113.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19167733
Bayoumi AM, Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of androgen suppression therapies in
advanced prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 Nov;92(21):1731-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11058616
[No authors listed] Medical Research Council Prostate Cancer Working Party Investigators Group.
Immediate versus deferred treatment for advanced prostatic cancer: initial results of the Medical
Research Council Trial. Br J Urol 1997 Feb;79(2):235-46.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9052476
Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, et al. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation
after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer.
N Engl J Med 1999 Dec;341(24):1781-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10588962
Nair B, Wilt T, MacDonald R, et al. Early versus deferred androgen suppression in the treatment of
advanced prostatic cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(1):CD003506.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11869665
Schumacher MC, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, et al. Good outcome for patients with few lymph node
metastases after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008 Aug;54(2):344-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18511183
Wong Y, Freedland S, Hudes G, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for node positive prostate
cancer. ASCO Annual Meeting 2007;Part 1;25(18S): abstract 5061.
http://www.asco.org/ASCO/Abstracts+&+Virtual+Meeting/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_ view&con
fID=47&abstractID=34790
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. Studer UE, Whelan P, Albrecht W, et al. Immediate or deferred androgen deprivation for patients
with prostate cancer not suitable for local treatment with curative intent: European Organisation for
Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Trial 30891. J Clin Oncol 2006 Apr;24(12):1868-76.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16622261
Granfors T, Modig H, Damber J, et al. Combined orchiectomy and external radiotherapy versus
radiotherapy alone for non-metastatic prostate cancer with or without pelvic lymph node involvement:
a prospective randomized study. J Urol 1998 Jun;159(6):2030-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9598512
Lawton CA, Winter K, Murray K, et al. Updated results of the phase III Radiation Therapy Oncology
Group (RTOG) trial 85-31 evaluating the potential benefit of androgen suppression following standard
radiation therapy for unfavorable prognosis carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
2001 Mar;49(4):937-46.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11240234
Bolla M, Collette L, Blank L, et al. Long-term results with immediate androgen suppression and
external irradiation in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer (an EORTC study): a phase III
randomized trial. Lancet 2002 Jul;360(9327):103-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12126818
Hanks GE, Pajak TF, Porter A, et al. Phase III trial of long-term adjuvant androgen deprivation after
neoadjuvant hormonal cytoreduction and radiotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the prostate:
the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Protocol 92-102. J Clin Oncol 2003;21(21):3972-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14581419
Zincke H, Lau W, Bergstralh E, et al. Role of early adjuvant hormonal therapy after radical
prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2001 Dec;166(6):2208-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11696737
Kuhn JM, Billebaud T, Navratil H, et al. Prevention of the transient adverse effects of a gonadotropinreleasing hormone analogue (buserelin) in metastatic prostatic carcinoma by administration of an
antiandrogen (nilutamide). N Engl J Med 1989 Aug;321(7):413-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2503723
Crawford ED, Eisenberger MA, McLeod DG, et al. A controlled trial of leuprolide with and without
flutamide in prostatic carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1989 Aug;321(7):419-24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2503724
Tangen CM, Faulkner JR, Crawford ED, et al. Ten-year survival in patients with metastatic prostate
cancer. Clin Prostate Cancer 2003 Jun;2(1):41-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15046683
Kruus LK, Palmer S, Malkowicz S, et al; University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA.
The influence of fatigue and hot flashes on the quality of life in prostate cancer patients. 2001 ASCO
Meeting, 12-15 May, San Francisco, USA, p. 1594.
http://pediatricca.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/
Steiner MS, Raghow S. Antiestrogens and selective estrogen receptor modulators reduce prostate
cancer risk. World J Urol 2003 May;21(1):31-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12756492
Smith MR. Complementary and alternative therapies for advanced prostate cancer. Hematol Oncol
Clin North Am 2001 Jun;15(3):559-71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11525297
Eaton AC, McGuire N. Cyproterone acetate in treatment of post-orchidectomy hot flushes. Doubleblind cross-over trial. Lancet 1983 Dec;2(8363):1336-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6139671
Sakai H, Igawa T, Tsurusaki T, et al. Hot flashes during androgen deprivation therapy with luteinizing
hormone-releasing hormone agonist combined with steroidal or nonsteroidal antiandrogen for
prostate cancer. Urology 2009 Mar;73(3):635-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19038426
Quella SK, Loprinzi CL, Sloan J, et al. Pilot evaluation of venlafaxine for the treatment of hot flashes in
men undergoing androgen ablation therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 1999 Jul;162(1):98-102.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10379749
Irani J, Salomon L, Oba R, et al. Efficacy of venlafaxine, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and
cyproterone acetate for the treatment of vasomotor hot flushes in men taking gonadotropin-releasing
hormone analogues for prostate cancer: a double-blind, randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2010
Feb;11(2):147-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19963436
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
99
135. 136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143. 144.
145.
146. 147. 148.
149.
150.
151.
100
Frisk J, Spetz AC, Hjertberg H, et al. Two modes of acupuncture as a treatment for hot flushes in
men with prostate cancer–a prospective multicenter study with long-term follow-up. Eur Urol 2009
Jan;55(1):156-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18294761
Sloan JA, Loprinzi CL, Novotny PJ, et al. Methodologic lessons learned from hot flash studies. J Clin
Oncol 2001 Dec;19(23):4280-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11731510
Isbarn H, Boccon-Gibod L, Carroll PR, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy for the treatment of
prostate cancer: consider both benefits and risks. Eur Urol 2009 Jan;55(1):62-75.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18945543
Smith MR, Boyce SP, Moyneur E, et al. Risk of clinical fractures after gonadotropin-releasing hormone
agonist therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2006 Jan;175(1):136-9; discussion 139.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16406890
Cree M, Soskolne CL, Belseck E, et al. Mortality and institutionalization following hip fracture. J Am
Geriatr Soc 2000 Mar;48(3):283-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10733054
Smith MR, Eastham J, Gleason DM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of zoledronic acid to prevent
bone loss in men receiving androgen deprivation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. J Urol
2003 Jun;169(6):2008-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12771706
Michaelson MD, Kaufman DS, Lee H, et al. Randomized controlled trial of annual zoledronic acid to
prevent gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist-induced bone loss in men with prostate cancer.
J Clin Oncol 2007 Mar;25(9):1038-42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17369566
Migliorati CA, Siegel MA, Elting LS. Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis: a long-term
complication of bisphosphonate treatment. Lancet Oncol 2006 Jun;7(6):508-14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16750501
Wadhwa VK, Weston R, Parr NJ. Frequency of zoledronic acid to prevent further bone loss in
osteoporotic patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2009 Nov
13. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19912210
Dearnaley DP, Mason MD, Parmar MK, et al. Survival benefit with oral sodium clodronate in metastatic
but not localised prostate cancer: long-term results of MRC PR04 & PR05. 2009 ASCO meeting,
Orlando, FL, Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, abstract 6.
http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_
view&confID=64&abstractID=20143
Smith MR, Egerdie B, Hernández Toriz N, et al; Denosumab HALT Prostate Cancer Study Group.
Denosumab in men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2009
Aug;361(8):745-55.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19671656
Smith MR. Changes in fat and lean body mass during androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate
cancer. Urology 2004;63(4):742-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15072892
Smith MR, Lee H, Nathan DM. Insulin sensitivity during combined androgen blockade for prostate
cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006 Apr;91(4):1305-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434464
Braga-Basaria M, Dobs AS, Muller DC, et al. Metabolic syndrome in men with prostate cancer
undergoing long-term androgen-deprivation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2006 Aug;24(24):3979-83.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16921050
Keating NL, O’Malley AJ, Smith MR. Diabetes and cardiovascular disease during androgen deprivation
therapy for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006 Sep;24(27):4448-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16983113
Saigal CS, Gore JL, Krupski TL, et al; and the Urologic Diseases in America Project. Androgen
deprivation therapy increases cardiovascular morbidity in men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2007
Oct;110(7):1493-500.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17657815
Efstathiou JA, Bae K, Shipley WU, et al. Cardiovascular mortality and duration of androgen deprivation
for locally advanced prostate cancer: analysis of RTOG 92-02. Eur Urol 2008 Oct;54(4):816-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18243498
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
152.
153.
154.
155.
156. 157.
158.
159.
160.
Roach M 3rd, Bae K, Speight J, et al. Short-term neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy and
external-beam radiotherapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: long-term results of RTOG 8610.
J Clin Oncol 2008 Feb;26(4):585-91.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18172188
Moinpour CM, Savage MJ, Troxel A, et al. Quality of life in advanced prostate cancer: results of a
randomized therapeutic trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998 Oct;90(20):1537-44.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9790546
Herr HW, O’Sullivan M. Quality of life of asymptomatic men with non-metastatic prostate cancer on
androgen deprivation therapy. J Urol 2000 Jun;163(6):1743-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10799173
Potoski AL, Knopf K, Clegg LX, et al. Quality-of-life outcomes after primary androgen deprivation
therapy: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Clin Oncol 2001 Sep;19(17):3750-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11533098
Cherrier MM, Aubin S, Higano CS. Cognitive and mood changes in men undergoing intermittent
combined androgen blockade for non-metastatic prostate cancer. Psychooncology 2009 Mar;18(3):
237-47.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18636420
Green HJ, Pakenham KI, Headley BC, et al. Quality of life compared during pharmacological
treatments and clinical monitoring for non-localized prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.
BJU Int 2004 May;93(7):975-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15142146
Iversen P, Melezinek I, Schmidt A. Non-steroidal antiandrogens: a therapeutic option for patients with
advanced prostate cancer who wish to retain sexual interest and function. BJU Int 2001 Jan;87(1):
47-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11121992
Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Barichello M, et al, for the Italian Prostate Cancer Project. Bicalutamide
monotherapy versus flutamide plus goserelin in prostate cancer patients: results of an Italian Prostate
Cancer Project study. J Clin Oncol 1999 Jul;17(7):2027-38.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10561254
Sieber PR, Keiller DL, Kahnoski RJ, et al. Bicalutamide 150 mg maintains bone mineral density during
monotherapy for localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. J Urol 2004 Jun;171(6 Pt 1):2272-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126801
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
101
13. SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES ON PRIMARY
TREATMENT OF PCa
Stage
T1a
Treatment
Watchful waiting
Active
surveillance
Radical
prostatectomy
Radiotherapy
T1bT2b
T1aT2c
Hormonal
Combination
Active
surveillance
Radical
prostatectomy
Radiotherapy
Brachytherapy
Hormonal
Combination
T3- T4 Watchful waiting
Radical
prostatectomy
Radiotherapy
Hormonal
Combination
102
Comment
Standard treatment for Gleason score < 6 and 7 adenocarcinomas and
< 10-year life expectancy.
In patients with > 10-year life expectancy, re-staging with TRUS and biopsy
is recommended.
Optional in younger patients with a long life expectancy, especially for
Gleason score > 7 adenocarcinomas
Optional in younger patients with a long life expectancy, in particular
in poorly differentiated tumours. Higher complication risks after TURP,
especially with interstitial radiation.
Not an option.
Not an option.
Treatment option in patients with cT1c-cT2a, PSA < 10 ng/mL, biopsy
Gleason score < 6, < 2 biopsies positive, < 50% cancer involvement of each
biopsy.
Patients with a life expectancy < 10 years.
Patients with a life expectancy > 10 years once they are informed about the
lack of survival data beyond 10 years.
Patients who do not accept treatment-related complications.
Standard treatment for patients with a life expectancy > 10 years who
accept treatment-related complications.
Patients with a life expectancy > 10 years who accept treatment-related
complications.
Patients with contraindications for surgery.
Unfit patients with 5-10 years of life expectancy and poorly differentiated
tumours (combination therapy is recommended; see below).
Low-dose rate brachytherapy can be considered for low risk PCa patients
with a prostate volume < 50 mL and an IPSS < 12.
Symptomatic patients, who need palliation of symptoms, unfit for curative
treatment.
Anti-androgens are associated with a poorer outcome compared to ‘active
surveillance’ and are not recommended.
For high-risk patients, neoadjuvant hormonal treatment and concomitant
hormonal therapy plus radiotherapy results in increased overall survival.
Option in asymptomatic patients with T3, well-differentiated and
moderately-differentiated tumours, and a life expectancy < 10 years who are
unfit for local treatment.
Optional for selected patients with T3a, PSA < 20 ng/mL, biopsy Gleason
score < 8 and a life expectancy > 10 years.
Patients have to be informed that RP is associated with an increased risk of
positive surgical margins, unfavourable histology and positive lymph nodes
and that, therefore, adjuvant or salvage therapy such as radiation therapy or
androgen deprivation might be indicated.
T3 with > 5-10 years of life expectancy. Dose escalation of > 74 Gy seems
to be of benefit. A combination with hormonal therapy can be recommended
(see below).
Symptomatic patients, extensive T3-T4, high PSA level (> 25-50 ng/mL),
PSA- Doubling Time (DT) < 1 year.
Patient-driven, unfit patients.
Hormone monotherapy is not an option for patients who are fit enough for
radiotherapy.
Overall survival is improved by concomitant and adjuvant hormonal therapy
(3 years) combined with external beam radiation.
NHT plus radical prostatectomy: no indication.
GR
B
B
B
B
A
C
B
A
B
B
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
B
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
N+, M0 Watchful waiting
Radical
prostatectomy
Radiotherapy
Hormonal
Combination
M+
Watchful waiting
Radical
prostatectomy
Radiotherapy
Asymptomatic patients. Patient-driven (PSA < 20-50 ng/mL), PSA DT > 12
months. Requires very close follow-up.
Optional for selected patients with a life expectancy of > 10 years as part of
a multimodal treatment approach.
Optional in selected patients with a life expectancy of > 10 years,
combination therapy with adjuvant androgen deprivation for 3 years is
mandatory.
Standard adjuvant therapy in more than 1 positive node to radiation therapy
or radical prostatectomy as primary local therapy. Hormonal therapy should
only be used as monotherapy in patients who are unfit for any type of local
therapy.
No standard option.
Patient-driven.
No standard option. May have worse survival/more complications than with
immediate hormonal therapy. Requires very close follow-up.
Not an option.
B
C
C
A
B
B
C
Not an option for curative intent; therapeutic option in combination with
C
androgen deprivation for treatment of local cancer-derived symptoms.
Hormonal
Standard option. Mandatory in symptomatic patients.
A
DT = doubling time; NHT = neoadjuvant hormonal treatment; IPSS = International Prostatic Symptom Score;
PSA = prostate specific antigen; TRUS = transrectal ultrasound; TURP = transurethral resection of the
prostate.
14. FOLLOW-UP: AFTER TREATMENT WITH
CURATIVE INTENT
14.1 Definition
Curative treatment is defined as radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy, either by external beam radiation or an
interstitial technique, or any combination of these. Alternative treatment options that are not fully established,
such as HIFU, do not have a well-defined, validated PSA-cut-point to define biochemical failure but do
generally follow the outlines given below.
14.2 Why follow-up?
The first question to be answered is: ‘If failure after curative treatment is so common, are follow-up efforts
worthwhile?’ The answer to this question is definitely ‘Yes’. Recurrences will occur in a substantial
number of patients who received treatment with intent to cure at various time points after the primary therapy.
The second question to be answered is: ‘What is the reason for follow-up?’ Reasons may vary
depending on the treatment given, patient age, co-morbidity and the patient’s own wishes. In general, patients
who receive curative therapy may be followed-up for any of the following reasons:
•
good responsible patient care;
•
possibility of second-line treatment with curative intent;
•
possibility of early hormonal therapy after failure;
•
as part of a study protocol.
Section 16 discusses treatment options after failure of primary therapy.
14.3 How to follow-up?
The procedures indicated at follow-up visits vary depending on the clinical situation. The examinations
discussed below are routinely used for the detection of PCa progression or residual disease. The PSA level,
and eventually DRE, are the only tests that need to be carried out routinely. A disease-specific history should
be mandatory at every follow-up visit and should include psychological aspects, signs of disease progression
and treatment-related complications. The examinations used for the evaluation of treatment-related
complications must be individualized and are beyond the scope of these guidelines. The examinations used
most often for cancer-related follow-up after curative surgery or radiation treatment are discussed below.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
103
14.3.1 PSA monitoring
The measurement of PSA level is a cornerstone in the follow-up after curative treatment. There is a difference
in what can be expected after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy, but PSA recurrence nearly always
precedes clinical recurrence after either treatment, in some cases by many years (1-5). It is recommended that
the finding of a single, elevated, serum PSA level should be re-confirmed before second-line therapy is started
solely based on the PSA elevation.
14.3.2 Definition of PSA progression
The level of PSA at which to define treatment failure differs between radical prostatectomy cases and radiation
treated cases. Following radical retropubic prostatectomy, two consecutive values of 0.2 ng/mL or greater
appear to represent an international consensus defining recurrent cancer (6,7). Other authors have argued for
an even higher cut-off of 0.4 ng/mL to better define patients with a high risk for clinical progression (5). It has
been shown that patients with a PSA level between 0.1 ng/mL and 0.2 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy had
neither clinical nor biochemical disease progression (8). Therefore, the use of an ultra-sensitive PSA assay is
not justified for routine follow-up after radical prostatectomy (4). If ongoing randomized trials show that early
adjuvant treatment after radical prostatectomy (given before PSA reaches > 0.2 ng/mL) improves survival, this
issue should be reconsidered.
Following radiation therapy, until recently, the definition of biochemical relapse was three consecutive
increases according to the recommendation of ASTRO from 1996 (9). At the 2006 RTOG-ASTRO Consensus
conference a new definition of radiation failure was established with as the main aim to establish a better
correlation between the definition and clinical outcome. The new definition of radiation failure is a rise of
2 ng/mL above the post-treatment PSA-nadir (lowest value) (10). This definition is applicable for patients
treated with or without hormonal therapy.
After HIFU or cryotherapy, a variety of definitions for PSA-relapse have been used (11). Most of these
are based on a cut-off of around 1 ng/mL, eventually combined with a negative post-treatment biopsy. As yet,
none of these end-points have been validated against clinical progression or survival and therefore it is not
possible to give firm recommendations on the definition of biochemical failure.
14.3.3 PSA monitoring after radical prostatectomy
PSA is expected to be undetectable within 6 weeks after a successful radical prostatectomy (12). A persistently
elevated PSA level means that PSA-producing tissue remains in the body. In patients treated with radical
prostatectomy, this is generally thought to be residual cancer due to either micrometastases that were not
detected or undetectable beforehand, or residual disease in the pelvis possibly due to positive surgical
margins.
A rapidly increasing PSA level (high PSA velocity, short PSA doubling time) indicates distant
metastases, while a later and slowly increasing concentration of PSA is most likely to indicate local disease
recurrence. The time to PSA recurrence and tumour differentiation are also important predictive factors
distinguishing between local and systemic recurrence (13,14). Both local treatment failure and distant
metastases have been shown to occur with undetectable PSA levels. This is very rare and occurs almost only
in patients with unfavourable pathology (undifferentiated tumours) (15,16).
This means that, in patients with a relatively favourable pathology (< pT3, pN0, Gleason score < 8),
PSA measurement, together with the disease-specific history, could stand as the single test in follow-up after
radical prostatectomy.
14.3.4 PSA monitoring after radiation therapy
The PSA level falls slowly after radiotherapy compared with radical prostatectomy. The optimal cut-off value for
a favourable PSA nadir after radiotherapy is somewhat controversial. Achieving a PSA nadir of less than
0.5 ng/mL seems to be associated with a favourable outcome (17). The interval before reaching the nadir PSA
may be very long and can sometimes take up to 3 years or more. A PSA rising more than 2 ng/mL above the
nadir PSA is the current definition of biochemical failure after radiotherapy (10). Also, after radiotherapy, the
PSA doubling time has been shown to correlate to the site of recurrence; patients with local recurrence had a
doubling time of 13 months compared to 3 months for those with distant failure (18).
14.3.5 Digital rectal examination (DRE)
DRE is performed to assess whether or not there is any sign of local disease recurrence. It is very difficult to
interpret the findings of DRE after curative therapy, especially after radiotherapy. A newly detected nodule
should raise the suspicion of local disease recurrence.
As mentioned previously, a local disease recurrence after curative treatment is possible without a
concomitant rise in PSA level (15,16). However, this has only been proven in patients with unfavourable
pathology, i.e. those with undifferentiated tumours. Thus, PSA measurement and DRE comprise the most
useful combination of tests as first-line examination in follow-up after radiotherapy or radical prostatectomy,
104
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
but PSA measurement may well be the only test in cases with favourable pathology (19).
14.3.6 Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and biopsy
TRUS and biopsy have no place in the routine follow-up of asymptomatic patients and nowadays only rarely
after biochemical failure. TRUS cannot stand alone as a diagnostic tool, but must usually be combined with
biopsy to establish the presence of local disease recurrence. The purpose of the investigation is to confirm a
histological diagnosis of local disease recurrence. It is only warranted if the finding of a local recurrence affects
the treatment decision (see Section 16 for a more detailed discussion).
14.3.7 Bone scintigraphy
The purpose of bone scintigraphy is to detect skeletal metastases. It is not recommended for the routine
follow-up of asymptomatic patients, but may be indicated in individuals with elevated PSA levels for whom the
findings will affect the treatment decision. It is also indicated in patients with symptoms arising from the
skeleton, since metastatic disease may occur even if PSA is undetectable (15,16).
14.3.8 Computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
CT or MRI have no place in the routine follow-up of asymptomatic patients. They may be used selectively in the
evaluation after biochemical failure before treatment decisions are made (see Section 16).
14.4 When to follow-up?
Most patients who fail treatment for PCa do so early, even if failure only becomes clinically obvious after years.
The patient should therefore be followed-up more closely during the first years after treatment when the risk
of failure is highest. PSA measurement, disease-specific history and DRE are recommended at the following
intervals: 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively, every 6 months thereafter until 3 years, and then annually.
The purpose of the first clinic visit is mainly to detect treatment-related complications and to assist
patients in coping with the new situation. Tumour or patient characteristics may allow alterations to this
schedule. For example, patients with poorly differentiated and locally advanced tumours or with positive
margins may be followed-up more closely than those with a well-differentiated, intracapsular or specimenconfined tumour. Obviously, advanced age or associated co-morbidity may make further follow-up in
asymptomatic patients superfluous.
14.5 Guidelines for follow-up after treatment with curative intent
GR
In asymptomatic patients, a disease-specific history and a serum PSA measurement supplemented
by DRE are the recommended tests for routine follow-up. These should be performed at 3, 6 and 12
months after treatment, then every 6 months until 3 years, and then annually.
B
fter radical prostatectomy, a serum PSA level of more than 0.2 ng/mL can be associated with
A
residual or recurrent disease.
B
fter radiation therapy, a rising PSA level over 2 ng/mL above the nadir PSA, rather than a specific
A
threshold value, is the most reliable sign of persistent or recurrent disease.
B
Both a palpable nodule and a rising serum PSA level can be signs of local disease recurrence.
B
etection of local recurrence by TRUS and biopsy is only recommended if it will affect the treatment
D
plan. In most cases TRUS and biopsy are not necessary before second-line therapy.
B
etastasis may be detected by pelvic CT/MRI or bone scan. In asymptomatic patients, these
M
examinations may be omitted if the serum PSA level is less than 20 ng/mL but data on this topic are
sparse.
C
Routine bone scans and other imaging studies are not recommended in asymptomatic patients. If a
patient has bone pain, a bone scan should be considered irrespective of the serum PSA level.
B
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
105
14.6 References
1. Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, et al. Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancerspecific survival
following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin
North Am 2001 Aug;28(3)555-65.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11590814
Rosser CJ, Chichakli R, Levy LB, et al. Biochemical disease-free survival in men younger than 60
years with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation. J Urol 2002 Aug;168(2):536-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12131304
Horwitz EM, Thames HD, Kuban DA, et al. Definitions of biochemical failure that best predict clinical
failure in patients with prostate cancer treated with external beam radiation alone: a multi-institutional
pooled analysis. J Urol 2005 Mar;173(3):797-802.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15711272
Taylor JA III, Koff SG, Dauser DA, et al. The relationship of ultrasensitive measurements of prostatespecific antigen levels to prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2006
Sep;98(3):540-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16925750
Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate
cancer after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol 2006
Aug;24(24):3973-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16921049
Boccon-Gibod L, Djavan WB, Hammerer P, et al. Management of prostate-specific antigen relapse in
prostate cancer: a European Consensus. Int J Clin Pract 2004 Apr;58(4):382-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15161124
Moul JW. Prostate specific antigen only progression of prostate cancer. J Urol 2000 Jun;163(6):
1632-42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10799151
Schild SE, Wong WW, Novicki DE, et al. Detection of residual prostate cancer after radical
prostatectomy with the Abbott Imx PSA assay. Urology 1996 Jun;47(6):878-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8677580
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel. Consensus statement:
guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997 Mar;37(5):1035-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9169810
Roach III M, Hanks G, Thames jr H, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with or
without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the
RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix consensus conference. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006 Jul;65(4):965-74.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16798415
Aus G. Current status of HIFU and cryotherapy in prostate cancer – a review. Eur Urol 2006 Nov;50(5):
927-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16971038
Stamey TA, Kabalin JN, McNeal JE, et al. Prostate specific antigen in the diagnosis and treatment of
adenocarcinoma of the prostate. II. Radical prostatectomy treated patients. J Urol 1989 May;141(5):
1076-83.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2468795
Partin AW, Pearson JD, Landis PK, et al. Evaluation of serum prostate-specific antigen velocity
after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases. Urology 1994
May;43(5):649-59.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7513108
Trapasso JG, deKernion JB, Smith RB, et al. The incidence and significance of detectable levels of
serum prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 2):1821-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7523728
Oefelein MG, Smith N, Carter M, et al. The incidence of prostate cancer progression with
undetectable serum prostate specific antigen in a series of 394 radical prostatectomies. J Urol 1995
Dec;154(6):2128-31.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500474
Leibman BD, Dilliouglugil O, Wheeler TM, et al. Distant metastasis after radical prostatectomy in
patients without an elevated serum prostate specific antigen level. Cancer 1995 Dec;76(12):2530-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8625081
2. 3.
4.
5.
6. 7. 8.
9.
10.
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 106
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
17. 18. 19. Ray ME, Thames HD, Levy LB, et al. PSA nadir predicts biochemical and distant failure after external
beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a multi-institutional analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006
Mar;64(4):1140-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16198506
Hancock SL, Cox RS, Bagshaw MA. Prostate specific antigen after radiotherapy for prostate cancer:
a reevaluation of long-term biochemical control and the kinetics of recurrence in patients treated at
Stanford University. J Urol 1995 Oct;154(4):1412-17.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7544843
Chaplin BM, Wildhagen MF, Schroder FH, et al. Digital rectal examination is no longer necessary in
the routine follow-up of men with undetectable prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy:
the implications for follow-up. Eur Urol 2005 Aug;48(6):906-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16126322
15. FOLLOW-UP AFTER HORMONAL TREATMENT
15.1 Introduction
A large proportion of patients treated with hormonal therapy have either metastatic or locally advanced
tumours at diagnosis. This will affect the scheme of follow-up because biochemical failure is often associated
with rapid symptomatic progression.
15.2 Purpose of follow-up
The main objectives of following-up these patients are:
•
to monitor the response to treatment;
•
to ensure compliance with treatment;
•
to detect potential complications of endocrine therapy;
•
to guide the modalities of palliative symptomatic treatment at the time of hormonal escape.
However, the usefulness of complementary investigations at various stages of the disease must be clarified in
order to avoid unnecessary examinations and excessive economic cost to the community. On the other hand,
strict recommendations for follow-up procedures are only useful if effective therapeutic strategies can be
offered to patients in cases of disease progression. To date, the issue of early vs late initiation of non-hormonal
treatment in castration-refractory PCa (CRPC) has still not been resolved, so follow-up should be performed on
an individual basis. Based on current knowledge, it is not possible to formulate strict guidelines for follow-up
procedures following hormonal therapy.
15.3 Methods of follow-up
15.3.1 Prostate-specific antigen monitoring
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a good marker for following the course of metastatic prostate cancer (PCa).
The prognostic value of PSA (the prediction of the duration of response to endocrine treatment), based on
either the initial pre-treatment value or the PSA decrease during the first three to six months, has been used to
monitor prostate cancer over the past few decades (1,2).
The initial PSA level can reflect the extent of metastatic disease, although some poorly differentiated
tumours do not secrete PSA. The prognostic value of the pre-treatment PSA value is variably assessed in the
literature and should not be used solely to predict the duration of response to treatment (3).
Treatment response may be assessed utilising the change in serum PSA level as a surrogate endpoint for survival in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic PCa after hormonal treatment has been initiated.
Patients with the lowest absolute value of serum PSA (< 0.2 ng/mL) also had the best survival compared with
those obtaining a value of 0.2-4.0 ng/mL or > 4.0 ng/mL (4). Similar results have been seen in other studies
of locally advanced and metastatic PCa (5,6). The PSA response has been shown to be equally important for
patients treated with hormonal therapy because of a rising PSA after treatments with curative intent (radical
prostatectomy, radiation therapy). Patients with the best response also had the best survival (7,8).
Despite its usefulness in determining treatment response in individual patients, the role of PSA as a
surrogate end-point in clinical trials is more controversial (9). After the initial phase of response to endocrine
treatment, patients should be regularly monitored in order to detect and treat any complications of endocrine
escape, as clinical disease progression occurs after a median interval of about 12-18 months of treatment in
patients with stage M1 disease. It is well established that regular PSA control in asymptomatic patients allows
the earlier detection of biochemical escape, as the rise in PSA level usually precedes the onset of clinical
symptoms by several months. However, it must be stressed that the PSA level is not a reliable marker of
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
107
escape and cannot stand alone as a follow-up test. Clinical disease progression (usually bone pain) with normal
PSA levels has been reported to occur.
15.3.2 Creatinine, haemoglobin and liver function monitoring
Creatinine monitoring has some value because it can detect upper urinary tract obstruction in cases of
advanced cancer that might need to be relieved by, for example, percutaneous nephrostomy or double J-stent.
Haemoglobin and liver function tests could suggest disease progression and/or toxicity of hormonal
treatment, which can lead to interruption of hormonal treatment (i.e. liver toxicity from non-steroidal antiandrogens).
The fact that haemoglobin levels will decrease by about 20% with androgen deprivation must be
taken into consideration (10).
Alkaline phosphatase and its bone-specific isoenzymes may be used to monitor patients with stage M1b
disease. These markers have the advantage of not being directly influenced by hormonal therapy compared
with PSA. It should be remembered that increases in serum concentrations of alkaline phosphatase might
also be due to osteoporosis induced by androgen deprivation (11). In this scenario, the determination of bonespecific alkaline phosphatase might be helpful.
15.3.3 Bone scan, ultrasound and chest X-ray
In routine practice, asymptomatic patients with a normal PSA level should not have a bone scan at regular
intervals as disease progression is more reliably detected by PSA monitoring, which also has a lower cost (1214).
Moreover, the interpretation of bone scans is sometimes difficult, and the appearance of a new site
of uptake or deterioration of pre-existing lesions in an asymptomatic patient does not modify the therapeutic
approach.
In cases where there is a clinical or laboratory suspicion of disease progression, a chest X-ray or renal
and hepatic ultrasound may be indicated. Imaging modalities must also be guided by symptoms. However,
these examinations are not recommended for routine use in asymptomatic patients. In CRPC disease, followup examinations should be individualised with the aim of maintaining the patient’s quality of life.
During long term ADT, regular measurement of BMD might be recommended (LE: 3) based on the
initial T-score (15): every two years if the initial T-score < 1.0, or yearly if the T-score is between 1.0 and 2.5 in
the absence of associated risk factors. Otherwise an active treatment should have started at the initiation of
ADT.
15.4
Testosterone monitoring
Most PCa patients receiving LHRH analogues will achieve serum testosterone values at or below the castration
level (< 20 ng/dL). However, about 13-38% of patients fail to achieve this therapeutic goal, while 2-17% of
patients do not achieve a serum testosterone level below 50 ng/dL (16-18). Furthermore, some men may
experience testosterone surges during long-term treatment upon re-administration of the agonist drug, which
is described as the ‘acute on-chronic effect’ (19). Testosterone surges may also been seen at any time during
treatment, when they are referred to as ‘breakthrough responses’; these may occur in 2-13% of patients on
LHRH agonists (20-22).
There is limited information about the optimal level of testosterone necessary to achieve in the
treatment of PCa. Recent studies have suggested lower testosterone levels may be associated with improved
outcomes. In a study of 73 men with non-metastatic PCa treated with LHRH androgen suppression (23),
patients experiencing testosterone breakthroughs had a reduced biochemical survival rate. The mean survival
without androgen-independent progression in patients with testosterone breakthroughs (increase > 32 ng/dL)
was
88 months (95% CI: 55-121) versus 137 months (95% CI: 104-170) in those without breakthrough increases
(p < 0.03). In a retrospective series of 129 men with metastatic PCa treated with LHRH agonists, the risk of
death was significantly correlated in multivariate analysis with serum testosterone level at 6 months (24).
In view of these findings, the measurement of serum testosterone levels, as well as serum PSA
levels, should be considered as part of clinical practice for men on LHRH therapy. The timing of testosterone
measurements is not clearly defined. The first evaluation of testosterone level can be recommended at 1 month
after initiating LHRH therapy to check the nadir testosterone level achieved before re-administration of the
agonist drug. A 6-month testosterone level assessment might be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of
treatment and to ensure the castration level is being maintained.
Switching to another LHRH agent or surgical orchiectomy can be attempted if this is not the case.
In patients with a rising PSA and/or clinical signs of progression, serum testosterone must be evaluated in all
cases to confirm a castrate-resistant state.
108
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
15.5 Monitoring of metabolic complications
Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is beneficial in patients with prostate cancer, but has a greater range
of complications than might be expected. The most common side-effects of low testosterone levels include
hot flushes, lack of libido, erectile dysfunction, gynaecomastia and loss of bone mineral density. However,
in addition, recent studies have suggested that men with low testosterone levels have a higher prevalence
of metabolic complications such as insulin resistance (25-27), arterial stiffness (25,26), diabetes (28-30), and
metabolic syndrome (31,32). Short-term ADT (3-6 months) leads to the development of insulin resistance (2527), while long-term ADT (12 months or longer) is associated with hyperglycaemia and frank diabetes (29).
Research has shown that he metabolic syndrome is present in more than 50% of the men undergoing longterm ADT, predisposing them to a higher cardiovascular risk (33). Men with metabolic syndrome are almost
three times more likely to die of coronary heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases (34), which have
now become the most common cause of death in prostate cancer patients, even exceeding prostate cancer
mortality (35).
In view of these findings, a cardiology consultation may be beneficial in men with a history of
cardiovascular disease and men older than 65 years prior to starting ADT. All patients should be screened for
diabetes by checking fasting glucose and HbA1c (at baseline and then every 3 months). In selected cases,
glucose tolerance testing may be required. Men with impaired glucose tolerance and/or diabetes should
be referred for endocrine consultation. Patients on ADT should be given advice on modifying their lifestyle
(diet, exercise, smoking cessation, etc.) and should be treated for any existing conditions, such as diabetes,
hyperlipidaemia, and/or hypertension (36,37). The monitoring of fasting glucose, lipids profile and blood
pressure is recommended in all patients receiving long-term ADT. The risk-to-benefit ratio of ADT must be
considered in patients with a higher risk of cardiovascular complications, especially if it is possible to delay
starting ADT (38,39).
15.6 When to follow-up
After initiation of hormonal treatment, it is recommended that patients be followed-up at three and six months.
These guidelines must be individualised, and each patient should be told to contact his physician in the event
of troublesome symptoms.
15.6.1 Stage M0 patients
If there is a good treatment response, i.e. symptomatic improvement, good psychological coping, good
treatment compliance and a serum PSA level of less than 4 ng/mL, follow-up visits are scheduled every six
months.
15.6.2 Stage M1 patients
If there is a good treatment response, i.e. good symptomatic improvement, good psychological coping, good
treatment compliance and a serum PSA level of less than 4 ng/mL, follow-up is scheduled every three to six
months.
15.6.3 Castration-refractory PCa
Patients whose disease progresses, or who do not respond according to the criteria mentioned above, warrant
an individualised follow-up scheme.
15.7 Guidelines for follow-up after hormonal treatment
Recommendation
GR
Patients should first be evaluated at three and six months after the initiation of treatment.
As a minimum, tests should include serum PSA measurement, digital rectal examination (DRE),
serum testosterone and careful evaluation of symptoms in order to assess the treatment response
and the side-effects of the treatments given
B
If patients undergo IAD, PSA and testosterone should be monitored in 3-month intervals during the
treatment pause
C
ollow-up should be tailored for the individual patient, according to symptoms, prognostic factors
F
and the treatment given
C
In patients with stage M0 disease with a good treatment response, follow-up is scheduled every
six months, and should include as a minimum a disease-specific history, DRE and serum PSA
determination
C
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
109
In patients with stage M1 disease with a good treatment response, follow-up is scheduled for
every three to six months. As a minimum, this should include a disease-specific history, DRE and
serum PSA determination, and is frequently supplemented with haemoglobin, serum creatinine and
alkaline phosphatase measurements
C
atients (especially if M1b status) should be advised about the clinical signs that could suggest
P
spinal cord compression
A
When disease progression occurs, or if the patient does not respond to the treatment given, the
follow-up needs to be individualised
C
Routine imaging of stable patients is not recommended
B
15.8
References
1.
Ercole CJ, Lange PH, Mathisen M, et al. Prostatic specific antigen and prostatic acid phosphatase in
the monitoring and staging of patients with prostatic cancer. J Urol 1987 Nov;138(5):1181-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2444720
Mecz Y, Barak M, Lurie A. Prognostic importance of the rate of decrease in prostatic specific
antigen (PSA) levels after treatment of patients with carcinoma of prostate. J Tumour Marker Oncol
1989;4:323-8.
Petros JA, Andriole GL. Serum PSA after antiandrogen therapy. Urol Clin North Am 1993
Nov;20(4):749-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7505983
Hussain M, Tangen CM, Higano C, et al. Absolute prostate-specific antigen value after androgen
deprivation is a strong independent predictor of survival in new metastatic prostate cancer: data from
Southwest Oncology Group Trial 9346 (INT-0162). J Clin Oncol 2006 Aug;24(24):3984-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16921051
Kwak C, Jeong SJ, Park MS, et al. Prognostic significance of the nadir prostate specific antigen level
after hormone therapy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2002 Sep;168(3):995-1000.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12187207
Collette L, de Reijke TM, Schröder FH; EORTC Genito-Urinary Group. Prostate specific antigen: a
prognostic marker of survival in good prognosis metastatic prostate cancer? (EORTC 30892). Eur Urol
2003 Aug;44(2):182-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12875936
D’Amico AV, Moul JW, Carroll PR, et al. Intermediate end point for prostate cancer-specific mortality
following salvage hormonal therapy for prostate-specific antigen failure. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004
Apr;96(7):509-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15069112
Stewart AJ, Scher HI, Chen MH, et al. Prostate-specific antigen nadir and cancer-specific mortality
following hormonal therapy for prostate-specific antigen failure. J Clin Oncol 2005 Sep;23(27):
6556-60.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16170163
Collette L, BurzyKowski T, Carroll KJ, et al. Is prostate antigen a valid surrogate end point for survival
in hormonally treated patients with metastatic prostate cancer? Joint research of the European
Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, the Limburgs Universitair Centrum, and
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. J Clin Oncol 2005 Sep;23(25):6139-48.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16135480
Strum SB, McDermed JE, Scholz MC, et al. Anaemia associated with androgen deprivation in patients
with prostate cancer receiving combined hormone blockade. Br J Urol 1997 Jun;79(6):933-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9202563
Daniell HW. Osteoporosis due to androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Urology
2001 Aug;58(2 Suppl 1):101-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11502461
Miller PD, Eardley I, Kirby RS. Prostate specific antigen and bone scan correlation in the staging and
monitoring of patients with prostatic cancer. Br J Urol 1992 Sep;70(3):295-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1384920
Oesterling JE. Prostate specific antigen: a critical assessment of the most useful tumor marker for
adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1991 May;145(5):907-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707989
Sissons GR, Clements MA, Peeling WB, et al. Can serum prostate-specific antigen replace bone
scintigraphy in the follow-up of metastatic prostatic cancer? Br J Radiol 1992;65(778):861-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1384917
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
110
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
15.
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Higano CS. Bone loss and the evolving role of bisphosphonate therapy in prostate cancer. Urol Oncol
2003;21(5):392-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14670551
Tombal B, Berges R. Corrigendum to: How good do current LHRH agonists control testosterone? Can
this be improved with Eligard®? [Eur Urol Suppl 4/8 (2005) 30-6]. Eur Urol 2006;49(5):937.
Morote J, Esquena S, Abascal JM, et al. Failure to maintain a suppressed level of serum testosterone
during long-acting depot luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy in patients with
advanced prostate cancer. Urol Int 2006;77(2):135-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16888418
Yri OE, Bjoro T, Fossa SD. Failure to achieve castration levels in patients using leuprolide acetate in
locally advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2006 Jan;49(1):54-8; discussion 58.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16314038
Sharifi R, Browneller R; Leuprolide Study Group. Serum testosterone suppression and potential
for agonistic stimulation during chronic treatment with monthly and 3-month depot formulations of
leuprolide acetate for advanced prostate cancer. J Urol 2002 Sep;168(3):1001-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12187208
Zinner NR, Bidair M, Centeno A, et al. Similar frequency of testosterone surge after repeat injections
of goserelin (Zoladex) 3.6 mg and 10.8 mg: results of a randomized open-label trial. Urology 2004
Dec;64(6):1177-81.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15596193
Fontana D, Mari M, Martinelli A, et al. 3-month formulation of goserelin acetate (‘Zoladex’ 10.8mg depot) in advanced prostate cancer: results from an Italian, open, multicenter trial. Urol Int
2003;70(4):316-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12740498
Khan MS, O’Brien A. An evaluation of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of leuprorelin acetate
3M-depot in patients with advanced and metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. Urol Int 1998;60(1):
33-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9519419
Morote J, Orsola A, Planas J, et al. Redefining clinically significant castration levels in patients with
prostate cancer receiving continuous androgen deprivation therapy. J Urol 2007 Oct;178(4 Pt 1):
1290-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17698136
Perachino M, Cavalli V, Bravi F. Testosterone levels in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated
with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone therapy: prognostic significance? BJU Int 2010 Mar
1;105(5):648-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19747358
Smith JC, Bennett S, Evans LM, et al. The effects of induced hypogonadism on arterial stiffness, body
composition, and metabolic parameters in males with prostate cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001
Sep;86(9):4261-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11549659
Dockery F, Bulpitt CJ, Agarwal S, et al. Testosterone suppression in men with prostate cancer leads
to an increase in arterial stiffness and hyperinsulinaemia. Clin Sci (Lond) 2003 Feb;104(2):195-201.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12546642
Smith MR, Lee H, Nathan DM. Insulin sensitivity during combined androgen blockade for prostate
cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:1305-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434464
Stellato RK, Feldman HA, Hamdy O, et al. Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin, and the
development of type 2 diabetes in middle-aged men: prospective results from the Massachusetts
male aging study. Diabetes Care 2000 Apr;23(4):490-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10857940
Basaria S, Muller DC, Carducci MA, et al. Hyperglycemia and insulin resistance in men with prostate
carcinoma who receive androgen-deprivation therapy. Cancer 2006 Feb;106(3):581-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16388523
Lage MJ, Barber BL, Markus RA. Association between androgen-deprivation therapy and incidence of
diabetes among males with prostate cancer. Urology 2007 Dec;70(6):1104-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18158027
Laaksonen DE, Niskanen L, Punnonen K, et al. Testosterone and sex hormone-binding globulin
predict the metabolic syndrome and diabetes in middle-aged men. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1036-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15111517
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
111
32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Muller M, Grobbee DE, den Tonkelaar I, et al. Endogenous sex hormones and metabolic syndrome in
aging men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005;90:2618-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15687322
Braga-Basaria M, Dobs AS, Muller DC, et al. Metabolic syndrome in men with prostate cancer
undergoing long-term androgen-deprivation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2006 Aug 20;24(24):3979-83.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16921050
Tsai HK, D’Amico AV, Sadetsky N, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy for localized prostate cancer
and the risk of cardiovascular mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1516-24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17925537
Lu-Yao G, Stukel TA, Yao SL. Changing patterns in competing causes of death in men with prostate
cancer: a population based study. J Urol 2004 Jun;171(6 Pt 1):2285-90.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126804
Shahani S, Braga-Basaria M, Basaria S. Androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer and
metabolic risk for atherosclerosis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008 Jun;93(6):2042-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18349064
Mohile SG, Mustian K, Bylow K, et al. Management of complications of androgen deprivation therapy
in the older man. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2009 Jun;70(3):235-55.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18952456
Schwandt A, Garcia JA. Complications of androgen deprivation therapy in prostate cancer. Curr Opin
Urol 2009 May;19(3):322-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19318949
Saylor PJ, Smith MR. Metabolic complications of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer.
J Urol 2009 May;181(5):1998-2006; discussion 2007-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19286225
16. TREATMENT OF BIOCHEMICAL FAILURE
AFTER TREATMENT WITH CURATIVE INTENT
16.1 Background
Primary curative procedures, such as radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy, are well-established
therapeutic options in the management of localised prostate cancer (PCa). Technical advances in surgery
have improved therapeutic efficacy, while improvements in radiation therapy have decreased treatmentassociated morbidity and toxicity. However, there still remains a significant risk of cancer recurrence after
therapy. Between 27% and 53% of all patients undergoing radiation therapy or RP will develop local or distant
recurrences within 10 years of initial therapy, and 16-35% of patients will receive second-line treatment within
5 years of initial therapy (1-6).
16.2
Definitions
16.2.1 Definition of treatment failure
In previous years, treatment failure was defined as a recurrence on digital rectal examination (DRE) or the
development of metastatic disease. Currently, treatment failure is defined as a rising PSA level, following a
study by Pound et al. (7), which showed that no patient followed up for more than 5 years developed any
recurrence without a concomitant rise in PSA.
The PSA level that defines treatment failure differs between patients treated with RP and those
treated with radiotherapy. Following radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), two consecutive values of PSA
> 0.2 ng/mL appear to represent an international consensus defining recurrent cancer (6,8). However, the most
appropriate definition of biochemical progression after RP is still uncertain.
In a retrospective analysis of 2,782 men who had undergone RP for clinically localised PCa, Amling
et al. (9) determined the best PSA cut-off point for defining biochemical recurrence. Once PSA recurrence was
detected, a subsequent increase in PSA was noted in 49%, 62% and 72% of patients who had PSA levels of
0.2 ng/mL, 0.3 ng/mL and 0.4 ng/mL, respectively. These data indicate that only half of patients with a PSA of
0.2 ng/mL will progress further, and that these patients can therefore initially be managed by surveillance (9).
Similar data have been presented by Stephenson et al. (2006) (10), who identified a PSA value > 0.4 ng/mL as
the best cut-off point to explain the development of distant metastases from among 10 candidate definitions,
which were derived from a retrospective review of 75 patients who had developed distant metastases after RP.
A cut-off of 0.4 ng/mL is therefore appropriate for defining progression with clinical relevance necessitating
112
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
salvage treatment.
Following radiotherapy, a reasonable definition of biochemical relapse is three consecutive increases,
according to the recommendation of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO)
Consensus Panel (11). The new definition indicates a relapse if the PSA increase is > 2 ng/mL higher than the
PSA nadir value, independent of the serum concentration of the nadir (12).
16.2.2 Definition of recurrence
•
Following RP, PSA values > 0.2 ng/mL confirmed by two consecutive measures represent recurrent
cancer.
•
Following radiotherapy, a PSA value of 2 ng/mL above the nadir after radiotherapy represents
recurrent cancer.
16.3
Local or systemic relapse
With regard to further management, once PSA relapse has been diagnosed, it is of major importance to
determine whether the recurrence has developed at local or distant sites. About 50% of patients who
underwent RRP will have local disease, and the remainder will have either distant disease alone, or distant and
local disease (11).
Important parameters to help differentiate between local or distant relapse include:
•
timing of the PSA increase after surgery;
•
PSA velocity (PSA Vel);
•
PSA DT;
•
pathohistological stage;
•
Gleason score of the prostatectomy specimen.
Elevations in PSA level that develop within the first 2 years following surgery are more likely to be associated
with distant recurrences (12). Research has shown that a median PSA doubling time (PSA DT) of < 4 months
might be associated with distant relapse, whereas a median PSA DT of > 12 months predicts local failure (13).
According to a recent study (14), PSA velocity of < 0.75 ng/mL/year was observed in 94% of patients with local
recurrence, whereas 56% of patients with distant metastases demonstrated a PSA velocity of
> 0.75 ng/mL/year. There is no indication for performing ultrasound-guided biopsies of the vesicourethral
anastomosis to diagnose local relapse because of the low sensitivity and low predictive accuracy of this
method in men with rising PSA levels < 1.0 ng/mL.
With radiotherapy, any continuously rising PSA following a nadir after radiation therapy is an indicator
for local recurrence, systemic metastatic spread, or a combination of both (11,14-16). However, due to the
well-known PSA bounce phenomenon, biochemical recurrence is defined by a PSA rise 2 ng/mL above the
PSA nadir according to ASTRO guidelines. After radiotherapy, a late and slowly rising PSA is a sign of local
failure only.
Local recurrence is defined by:
•
Prostatic biopsy demonstrating malignant cells 18 months or longer after initial radiotherapy together
with an associated rise in PSA. Prostate biopsy, however, is only indicated if the patient is being
considered for a secondary local salvage therapy with curative intent
and
•
No evidence of metastatic spread documented by CT or MRI and bone scintigraphy.
16.3.1 Definition of local and systemic failure
•
Local failure following RP is predicted with an 80% probability by PSA increase > 3 years after RP, a
PSA DT > 11 months, a Gleason score < 6, and stage < pT3a pN0, pTx R1.
•
Systemic failure following RP is predicted with > 80% accuracy by a PSA increase < 1 year after RP, a
PSA DT of 4-6 months, a Gleason score of 8-10, and stage pT3b, pTxpN1.
•
Local failure after radiotherapy is documented by a positive prostatic biopsy and negative imaging
studies.
•
Prostatic biopsy after radiotherapy is necessary only if local procedures such as salvage
prostatectomy are indicated in an individual patient.
16.4
Evaluation of PSA progression
Prior to extensive diagnostic work-up in patients with PSA relapse following local treatment, men must be
stratified into patients who are candidates for salvage therapy and those who are not. Patients must then be
further stratified into candidates for local salvage treatment and those who might need systemic therapy. All
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
113
diagnostic procedures only have to be performed if they are likely to have therapeutic consequences.
In recent years, disease recurrence would be confirmed in patients, who showed PSA progression
following initial therapy with curative intent, by further investigations, including physical and sonographic
examinations, as well as radiographic studies or biopsies of the prostatic fossa and the vesicourethral
anastomosis.
For patients with asymptomatic, PSA-only progression, the yield is very low. Lange et al. (14) have
shown that biochemical failure precedes clinical disease by 6-48 months. In general, DRE is not useful in men
with undetectable or very low PSA levels. In a recent study by Öbek et al. (17), only 4/72 patients (5.5%) with a
PSA recurrence following RP had an abnormal DRE.
Imaging studies are performed to differentiate local from systemic relapse to ensure the most
appropriate treatment modality is used. However, it must be remembered that most imaging studies may not
be sensitive enough to identify the anatomical location of relapsing PCA at PSA levels below 0.5 ng/ml or 1.0
ng/mL.
16.4.1 Diagnostic procedures for PSA relapse following RP
Traditionally, bone scans and abdominal CT scans have been used to evaluate PSA elevations following
primary treatment. Both imaging studies, however, are characterised by a low sensitivity and specificity and
might be safely omitted in the routine work-up of relapsing patients. Recently, Cher et al. (18) studied 144 bone
scans in 93 patients with PSA recurrence after RRP, of which 122 patients had undergone RP without any
hormone treatment, whereas 22 patients had received either neoadjuvant or adjuvant androgen-deprivation
therapy (ADT). Only 4.1% and 27% of the bone scintigrams were positive for metastatic disease; the lowest
PSA associated with positive findings was 46 ng/mL in the absence of adjuvant ADT, whereas the lowest PSA
value was 15.47 ng/mL in patients who had received hormonal therapy (HT).
The likelihood of a positive bone scan remains < 5% until the serum PSA level reaches at least 40 ng/
mL. Similar data have been achieved by other groups, who demonstrated that patients with a true positive
bone scan had an average PSA level of > 60 ng/mL and a PSA velocity of 22 ng/mL/year (19,20). On logistic
regression analysis, PSA and PSA velocity predicted the findings on bone scan, and PSA velocity predicted
the CT scan result. The probability of a positive bone scan and a positive CT scan was 9.4% and 14%,
respectively, among the 132 patients with biochemical recurrence. However, there might be a slight difference
between patients after RRP compared with patients after radiation therapy, as demonstrated by Johnstone et
al. (21) in whose study 5% and 30%, respectively, of the bone scans, were positive.
In summary, bone scintigraphy and CT scans are of no additional diagnostic value unless the PSA
serum levels are higher than 20 ng/mL or the PSA velocity is more than 20 ng/mL/year.
Endorectal coil imaging has been described as a useful technique to detect local recurrences after RP
(22). In a series of 48 patients, local recurrence was correctly identified in 81%, with the mean PSA being 2 ng/
mL at the time of diagnosis.
In another series of 72 men with PSA relapse following RP, the diagnostic accuracy of endorectal MRI was
evaluated (23). The mean total PSA was1.23 +/- 1.3 ng/mL and men underwent endorectal MRI on a 1.5-T
system. These data were compared to various references for local recurrence:
•
Prostatectomy bed biopsy results;
•
Choline positron emission tomography results;
•
PSA reduction or increase after pelvic radiotherapy;
•
PSA modification during active surveillance.
Sensitivity, specificity, predictive positive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 61.4%, 82.1%,
84.4%, 57.5%, and 69.4% for unenhanced endorectal MRI and 84.1%, 89.3%, 92.5%, 78.1%, and 86.1% for
enhanced-endorectal MRI. A statistically significant difference was found between the accuracy and sensitivity
of the two evaluations (χ2 = 5.33; p = 0.02 and χ2 = 9.00; p = 0.0027).
Although endorectal MRI appears to be very sensitive and predictive in identifying local recurrences
following RP, it is currently not a routine imaging modality to be performed in each individual case. This is
because local versus systemic relapses are differentiated at PSA levels below 0.5 ng/mL (see Section 16.6). At
these PSA levels, endorectal MRI is still too insensitive and too inaccurate.
Positron emission tomography (PET) has been successfully applied in many human cancers for early
identification of local or systemic recurrences. In PCa, there are few, but promising, published data on the
clinical efficacy of PET in detecting local recurrences after RP (23,24). However, it must be remembered that
the uptake of 11C-choline is not specific for PCa and may sometimes be due to inflammatory intraprostatic
lesions.
In a series of 31 patients with biochemical progression after RP, (11C)acetate-PET demonstrated a
high sensitivity and specificity for detecting local recurrences at PSA serum levels > 1 ng/mL (24). In another
114
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
recent series of 43 patients with newly diagnosed PCa, there was a significant correlation between the
11C-choline uptake and the intraprostatic location of PCa as analysed in RP specimens (25). Similar results
have been reported for the detection of locally recurrent PCa after radiation therapy (26). However, sensitivity
with regard to extraprostatic extension was significantly lower for 11C-PET when compared with MRI.
The most recent series to evaluate the role of 11C-choline PET/CT in patients with biochemical
recurrence after RP identified a significant PSA relationship: the sensitivity to identify the localisation of
metastases was 20-36% at PSA levels < 1 ng/mL, and increased to 63-83% in men with PSA levels > 3 ng/mL
(27-30).
Castelucci et al. (2009) (31) evaluated the effect of total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at the time of (11)
C-choline PET/CT (trigger PSA), PSA Vel, and PSA DT on (11)C-choline PET/CT detection rate in 190 patients
with PSA relapse following RP (mean, 4.2; median, 2.1; range, 0.2-25.4 ng/mL). (11)C-choline PET/CT detected
disease relapse in 74 of 190 patients (38.9%). The detection rate of (11)C-choline PET/CT was 25%, 41%, and
67% in the four PSA subgroups:
•
19% in the PSA group, < 1 ng/mL (51 patients);
•
25% in the PSA group, 1 < PSA < 2 ng/mL (39 patients);
•
2 < PSA < 5 ng/mL (51 patients);
•
PSA > 5 ng/mL (49 patients).
Trigger PSA values were statistically different between PET-positive patients (median PSA, 4.0 ng/mL) and
PET-negative patients (median PSA, 1.4 ng/mL) (p = 0.0001) with the optimal cut-off point for a trigger PSA of
2.43 ng/mL. In 106 patients, the PSA DT and PSA Vel values were statistically different between patients with
PET-positive (p = 0.04) and PET-negative scan findings (p = 0.03). The (11)C-choline PET/CT detection rate
was 12%, 34%, 42%, and 70%, respectively, in patients with PSA Vel < 1 ng/mL/year (33 patients), 1 < PSA
Vel < 2 ng/mL/years (26 patients), 2 < PSA Vel < 5 ng/mL/years (19 patients), and PSA Vel > 5 ng/mL/y (28
patients). The (11)C-choline PET/CT detection rate was 20%, 40%, 48%, and 60%, respectively, in patients
with PSA DT > 6 months (45 patients), 4 < PSA DT < 6 months (20 patients), 2 < PSA DT < 4 months (31
patients), and PSA DT < 2 months (10 patients).
The role of choline PET/CT in detecting local or systemic recurrences in men with PSA relapse
following radiotherapy is unclear and based on very few studies (32,33). Thus, no final recommendations can
be made. Its sensitivity and specificity with regard to the detection of lymph node metastases is less reliable,
and the routine use of 11C-PET cannot therefore be recommended, especially not for PSA values < 1 ng/mL.
Immunoscintigraphy, which uses a radiolabelled monoclonal antibody based on prostate-specific
membrane antigen for messenger RNA (PSMA), known as 111-indium capromab pendetide, might represent
an innovative diagnostic approach. Its overall accuracy is up to 81% to detect the site of relapse in PSA-only
recurrences following RRP (34-37). Independent of the PSA serum concentration, a capromab pendetide scan
shows a diagnostic yield of 60-80%, and may help to stratify therapy according to the location of positive
sites. A recent study (35) investigating 255 patients with PSA-only recurrence < 4.0 ng/mL after RP, showed
capromab pendetide uptake in 72% throughout the range of post-operative PSA serum levels (0.1-4.0 ng/mL).
Approximately 31%, 42% and 25% of patients exhibited local uptake, locoregional uptake and distant uptake,
respectively, enabling therapy to be targeted according to the differentiation of local versus systemic relapse.
However, immunoscintigraphy is not widely available and due to sparse results it can only be regarded
as an experimental imaging modality not to be used in daily clinical routine.
It was common practice to exclude local recurrence after RRP or radiotherapy by performing
transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies of the prostatic fossa, the anastomosis or the prostate gland.
However, available studies indicate that routine biopsy of the vesicourethral anastomosis is not justifiable
based on a verification rate of only 54% (33-37). The diagnostic yield of the biopsy improves to approximately
80% only in the presence of a palpable lesion or a hypoechoic lesion on TRUS. Furthermore, a strong
correlation has been shown between the PSA serum level and a positive biopsy (36-40); 28% and 70% of the
biopsies were positive if the PSA level was, respectively, < 0.5 ng/mL or > 2.0 ng/mL.
These findings therefore indicate that the use of PSA and PSA DT is sufficient for clinical practice and
routine anastomotic biopsy is not necessary. In addition, PSA-free survival in biopsy-proven recurrences does
not differ significantly compared with PSA-only recurrences.
16.4.2 Diagnostic studies for PSA relapse following radiation therapy
With regard to PSA relapses following radiation therapy, routine prostate biopsy should no longer be performed
for the evaluation of PSA-only recurrences, according to an ASTRO consensus recommendation (15). However,
prostate biopsy documenting local recurrence represents the main cornerstone in the decision-making process
for salvage radical prostatectomy in patients with rising PSA levels following a nadir after radiation therapy (41).
It is a general recommendation to wait about 18 months after radiation therapy or seeds and 3 months after
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
115
cryotherapy or high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Patients with rising PSA and viable cancer on biopsy
2 years after radiation therapy have true locally recurrent disease and may be candidates for radical salvage
prostatectomy.
Recent studies have evaluated the role of endorectal MRI, MRI spectroscopy and dynamic-contrast
enhanced MRI in the identification of locally recurrent PCA following radiation therapy (42-44). These
studies demonstrated that locally recurrent PCA could be differentiated from benign nodules due to the low
T2-weighted signal intensity. Endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopy were more sensitive than TRUS or TRUSguided prostate biopsies to detect viable PCA. Endorectal MRI also contributed important information with
regard to the presence of extracapsular extension and seminal vesicle invasion with sensitivity and a specificity
of 86% and 96%, respectively.
It is therefore strongly recommended that endorectal MRI is part of the diagnostic work-up of men
with PSA relapse after radiation therapy, who might be candidates for secondary local salvage therapy with
curative intent.
16.4.3 Diagnostic procedures in patients with PSA relapse
•
•
•
•
16.5
ollowing RP, CT scans of the pelvis and abdomen are of low sensitivity and specificity in patients
F
with PSA levels < 20 ng/mL or a PSA velocity of < 2 ng/mL/year.
Endorectal MRI or PET scans may help to detect local recurrences if PSA is > 1-2.0 ng/mL, but are
not routine clinical practice for the early detection of local relapses.
Following radiation therapy, local recurrence is documented by a positive biopsy > 18 months after
the procedure.
Endorectal MRI is of valuable importance for men who are candidates for radical salvage
prostatectomy.
Treatment of PSA-only recurrences
The timing and mode of treatment of PSA-only recurrence after RP or radiation therapy remains controversial.
After RRP observation, the therapeutic options are:
•
radiation therapy to the prostatic bed;
•
(complete) androgen blockade (CAB);
•
intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD);
•
combination of antiandrogens with 5-α-reductase inhibitors;
•
early chemohormonal approaches.
These same therapeutic options may be applied to PSA recurrences following radiation therapy. In addition,
salvage prostatectomy, cryotherapy or brachytherapy may be indicated in carefully selected patients.
16.5.1 Radiation therapy for PSA-only recurrence after radical prostatectomy
Three large randomised controlled trials in adjuvant radiation have now been published (45-48). All three trials
showed a benefit with adjuvant radiotherapy of at least 15% at 5 years in biochemical recurrence-free survival.
The largest trial (EORTC-22911, n = 1005) and the smallest trial (ARO-96-02, n = 307) trial were powered to
detect a benefit in biochemical disease recurrence-free survival, while metastasis-free survival was the primary
endpoint of the third trial, SWOG-S8794 (n = 431). The three trials had similar inclusion criteria; however, the
EORTC trial also included pT2R1 patients, while the other two trials allowed only pT3 cancers with or without a
positive resection margin. In all three trials, quite a high proportion of patients (63-68%) had a positive surgical
margin.
It should be noted that the post-operative PSA level of men before they were randomised to adjuvant
radiotherapy was different between the three trials. In the German ARO-96-02 trial, only men with a PSA < 0.1
ng/mL were eligible for randomisation. In the EORTC trial, 11% of men had a PSA level > 0.2 ng/mL prior to
randomisation and 34% in the SWOG trial. Thus, a substantial number of patients in the EORTC and SWOG
trials received ‘salvage‘ radiation rather than adjuvant radiotherapy for a non-normalised PSA.
It is therefore interesting that not all men in the non-adjuvant arms of the trials were treated with
salvage radiotherapy by the time of a biochemical recurrence: delayed or salvage radiotherapy to the prostatic
fossa was administered to 55% of men with a rising PSA level in the EORTC trial and to 33% of men in the
SWOG trial. Thus, the trials were not able to evaluate whether adjuvant radiation was superior to salvage
radiation as, in the control arm, only half of the men at most received radiation at the time of PSA recurrence.
Indeed, the authors of the EORTC trial suggested that salvage radiation may be equivalent to adjuvant therapy,
provided the PSA is lower than 1 ng/mL (46). However, only the SWOG trial was powered to address the
effect of delayed radiation since it was the only trial with metastasis-free survival as the primary endpoint. In
the SWOG trial, men in the control arm were less likely to receive salvage radiation (33%). However, it took
a median follow-up of over 12 years before metastasis-free survival improved in the adjuvant treatment arm,
suggesting that adjuvant therapy may not be helpful in men with a life expectancy < 10 years (45,47).
116
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
There have been many studies on the use of radiation therapy for PSA-only recurrence following RRP.
As a result, there is a growing body of parameters predicting outcome that may help to differentiate between
the need for observation, radiation or HT. As confirmed by various studies, the pre-radiation PSA level is
critically important for optimal treatment results (41-44,49-53):
•
Applying a pre-radiation cut-off of < 2.5 ng/mL, Wu et al. (49) and Schild et al. (50) reported diseasefree survival rates of 53% and 76%, compared with 8% and 26%, respectively, for patients with PSA
serum levels > 2.5 ng/mL.
•
Forman et al. (1997) (51) demonstrated a disease-free survival rate of 83% versus 33% in patients with
a PSA-only recurrence of < 2.0 ng/mL and greater than 2.0 ng/mL, respectively.
•
Nudell et al. (1999) (44) even reported progression-free survival rates of 58% and 21% in patients
having undergone radiation of the prostate bed if PSA serum levels were below 1.0 ng/mL or greater
than 1.0 ng/mL, respectively.
Based on these data, ASTRO has published a consensus paper recommending a dose of at least 64 Gy when
the PSA level is < 1.5 ng/mL after RRP (15). Furthermore, recent papers (53-58) have corroborated the data of
early salvage radiation therapy, demonstrating a significant difference in 5-year biochemical-free and OS rates
in patients treated for PSA-recurrence only or for palpable local recurrence. In another study, Stephenson et
al. (2007) (59) evaluated prognostic models to predict the outcome of salvage radiation therapy on a cohort
of 1,603 men with PSA progression after RP and operated on in 17 North American tertiary referral centres.
The authors identified a significant relationship between PSA serum concentration at the time of radiation
therapy and therapeutic outcome: the 6-year biochemical-free survival was 48% in men with PSA < 0.5 ng/mL,
whereas it was only 40%, 28%, and 18% in men with PSA levels of 0.51-1 ng/mL, 1.01-1.5 ng/mL and > 1.5
ng/mL, respectively.
For the SWOG and EORTC non-adjuvant radiotherapy arms, the median interval to salvage
radiotherapy was 2 and 2.2 years, respectively. In the SWOG 8974 study, 23% of men had a PSA > 1.5 ng/
mL prior to salvage radiation. In a subanalysis of the SWOG 8974 trial, Swanson et al. (2007) (60) showed that
men in all categories of post-prostatectomy PSA level (< 0.2, 0.2-1.0, > 1.0 ng/mL) showed an improvement
with salvage radiotherapy in metastasis-free survival. However, the therapeutic benefit was most evident in the
presence of minimal PSA serum levels. These data suggest that, although less effective, salvage radiation may
help improve metastasis-free survival.
In a recent, multi-institutional, matched-control analysis of adjuvant and salvage post-operative
radiation for pT3-4N0 PCa, Trabulsi et al. (2008) (61) have demonstrated a biochemical recurrence-free survival
advantage in favour of adjuvant radiotherapy versus salvage radiotherapy. Interestingly, in a multivariate Cox
regression analysis, adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy were not independent predictors in metastatic
progression-free survival, when corrected for adverse clinical and pathological factors.
Recently, data on overall survival and salvage radiation have become available. In a group of men
with a median follow-up of 9 years after prostatectomy, the benefit of salvage radiation for prostate cancerspecific mortality was seen particularly in men with a PSA DT of less than 6 months, who had been given
salvage radiation to the prostate fossa within 2 years after a rise in PSA (62). This suggests that local disease
control may prolong prostate cancer-specific survival in men formerly thought to be at risk for systemic
disease progression and less likely to benefit from (salvage) radiation. It has been suggested that men with
slowly progressing disease, even though still at risk of systemic progression, may not benefit from salvage
radiotherapy because they have a low risk of development of lethal PCa. Certainly, longer follow-up is needed
to answer this question.
However, more data are required from prospective randomised trials.
16.5.1.1Dose, target volume, toxicity
The three randomised trials on adjuvant radiation therapy all used dosages less than 66 Gy, which is currently
the most frequently used dose for adjuvant and salvage radiation. However, it is important to note that, as with
dose escalation studies in primary radiation for PCa, an increased dose in the salvage setting may improve
the biochemical response without worsening local toxicity (63,64). Dosages up to 70 Gy showed better
biochemical recurrence-free rates at higher doses, with 66.8 Gy radiation found to be the dose required for
50% biochemical recurrence-free survival (TCD50). Even higher doses may be considered, particularly when
using improved imaging techniques, such as fiducial markers (65). The finding that 9% of men develop a local
recurrence after adjuvant radiation of 60 Gy provides support for an increase in dosage and target volume (60).
Target volume delineation has been found to vary by up to 65% between different radiotherapists
administering adjuvant or salvage radiation to the prostatic fossa (66,67), despite the presence of guidelines
(68). It is therefore important not to overlook local toxicity. In the EORTC 22911 study, 3.1% of men had to
interrupt adjuvant radiation because of local complaints, mainly diarrhoea. Although grade 3 or 4 toxicity is rare
for either adjuvant or salvage radiation to the prostate fossa, it was almost doubled in the adjuvant arm of the
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
117
EORTC 22911 study (2.6% vs 4.2%) and the SWOG S8794 study, particularly urethral stricture (relative risk
[RR], 9) and incontinence (RR, 2.3).
16.5.2 Hormonal therapy
Systemic failure following RP is predicted with > 80% accuracy by PSA relapse < 1 year, PSA DT of 4-6
months, Gleason score 8-10 and stage pT3b, pTxpN1. There is some evidence that early HT may help to delay
progression and possibly achieve a survival benefit (69,70).
16.5.2.1Adjuvant hormonal therapy after radical prostatectomy
In the absence of randomised controlled trials for post-operative PSA recurrence, it is necessary to rely on
retrospective data or to extrapolate data from other clinical settings, such as men with metastatic disease or
locally advanced non-metastatic disease. It is uncertain whether or not such data are relevant to men with
rising post-operative PSA levels.
Two randomised studies have compared immediate HT (after diagnosis) with deferred HT (on
progression) in patients with PCa. The Medical Research Council study in locally advanced or asymptomatic
metastatic PCa and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment study in newly diagnosed PCa
(T0-4N0M0) illustrate that, although immediate HT after diagnosis can delay disease progression in men with
PCa, it does not necessarily result in an improved CSS (71,72).
The survival advantage for immediate (adjuvant) ADT after RP has only been proven in patients with
positive-lymph-node PCa in a single randomised study (69,70). The updated results of this multicentre Eastern
Cooperative Oncology Group study after a median follow-up of 11.9 years showed a significant improvement in
overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in lymph-node-positive
(N+) patients treated with immediate ADT (70).
Adjuvant bicalutamide, 150 mg, could decrease progression in men with locally advanced PCa, but
did not result in an OS benefit (73). Several retrospective analyses from the Mayo Clinic showed that adjuvant
HT after RP had a positive effect on time to progression and cancer death in patients with pT3b and N+ PCa
(74-76). However, a recent large series from the Mayo Clinic with a median follow-up of 10.3 years showed
that adjuvant HT in patients with surgically managed N+ PCa decreased the risk of biochemical recurrence
and local recurrence, but did not significantly impact systemic progression or CSS (77). A recent retrospective
study with a median follow-up of 5.2 years showed that immediate and delayed HT (at PSA recurrence) in
patients with surgically managed N+ PCa provided similar outcomes (78).
An observational study showed that deferring immediate ADT in men with positive lymph nodes
after RP may not significantly compromise survival. There was no statistically significant difference in survival
with 90, 150, 180 and 365 days as the definition of adjuvant ADT. These results need to be validated in a
prospective study (79).
16.5.2.2Post-operative HT for PSA-only recurrence
Androgen deprivation
Although patients with post-operative PSA recurrence often undergo ADT before evidence of metastatic
disease, the benefit of this approach is uncertain. A retrospective study including 1352 patients with postoperative PSA recurrence showed no significant difference in the time to clinical metastases with early ADT
(after PSA recurrence, but before clinical metastases) versus delayed ADT (at the time of clinical metastases).
However, upon risk stratification, early ADT could delay the time to clinical metastases in high-risk patients with
a Gleason score > 7 and/or a PSA DT < 12 months. Androgen deprivation therapy had no overall impact on
prostate cancer-specific mortality (80).
A recent retrospective study from the Mayo Clinic showed that adjuvant ADT (within 90 days of
surgery) slightly improved the CSS and systemic PFS after RP in a large group of high-risk patients with PCa.
However, the survival advantage was lost when ADT was delivered farther in the disease process, at the time
of PSA recurrence or systemic progression. It should be emphasised that there was no OS advantage (83%
for both groups) and that the difference in CSS and systemic PFS was only 3% and 5%, respectively (81).
In a recent retrospective study, including 422 patients with post-operative PSA recurrence, 123 developed
distant metastasis, of whom 91patients with complete data received deferred ADT at the time of documented
metastasis after RP. The authors concluded that patients when closely followed after PSA recurrence may have
an excellent response to deferred ADT and a long survival with a median failure time of 168 months from RP
to death (82). However, these three studies are limited by their retrospective design and in assessing the sideeffects of long-term ADT. Evidence from well-designed, prospective, randomised studies is needed before the
use of early HT can be advocated in clinical practice.
Antiandrogens
Although gynaecomastia and breast tenderness were the most predominant side-effects for the treatment
118
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
of organ-confined and locally advanced PCa, the incidence of hot flushes, loss of libido and impotence was
significantly lower than expected for luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists and CAB (83).
Antiandrogens may represent a viable alternative to other modes of androgen deprivation for the management
of PSA-only recurrences, especially in young and otherwise healthy men.
In a prospective, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of adjuvant bicalutamide, 150 mg, following
RP in patients with locally advanced disease, the risk of objective progression of the disease was significantly
reduced in patients receiving bicalutamide. However, OS did not differ between groups (84). Low-dose
flutamide, 250 mg daily, is currently being investigated in men with PSA recurrence. Bicalutamide, 150 mg
daily, has not yet been studied in this clinical setting (85).
Intermittent androgen deprivation
Intermittent androgen deprivation has been examined as a potential alternative to CAD:
•
to delay the time to androgen independence and hormone-refractory disease;
•
to minimise the side-effects;
•
to reduce the costs of prolonged therapy.
Recently, the Cochrane Collaboration revealed that there were no long-term data of large-scale randomised
controlled trials that proved the superiority of IAD over CAD in terms of its effect on survival. Limited
information suggests that IAD may result in a slight reduction of adverse effects (86). In the setting of PSA-only
recurrences, however, there are no prospective randomised trials and no clinical studies with sufficient data on
long-term efficacy to justify a routine clinical application of IAD, despite its potential benefits. Summarising the
series in which PSA-only recurrences were treated by IAD (87-91), PSA threshold levels at study-entry varied
significantly, as did the PSA level at discontinuation of HT. Only the study of 150 patients by Tunn et al. (2003)
(91) had a sufficiently appropriate study design to allow the drawing of important clinical conclusions. Patients
were started on IAD for 9 months when the post-prostatectomy PSA serum level was greater than
3.0 ng/mL, and all patients reached a nadir of less than 0.5 ng/mL. Intermittent androgen deprivation was
re-started when PSA increased to more than 3.0 ng/mL. After a mean follow-up of 48 months, and a mean
duration of HT of 26.6 months, none of the patients had progressed to hormone-refractory disease. In the
meantime, IAD remains attractive to selected, closely monitored and well-informed patients with post-operative
PSA recurrence.
Minimal androgen blockade
In some studies, finasteride and flutamide have been combined to manage PSA-only recurrences since both
agents work additively by blocking the intraprostatic conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT),
and blocking the intracytoplasmic DHT receptor (92-94). In the latest report (93), including 73 patients, the
application of finasteride (10 mg/day) and low-dose flutamide (250 mg/day) resulted in a mean PSA nadir of
1.35 ng/mL within 6 months. However, only 62% of the patients studied reached a PSA nadir of < 0.2 ng/mL.
After a mean follow-up of 15 months, none of the patients had progressed to traditional HT. However, longer
follow-up of a larger patient cohort is needed, and randomised phase III trials using modern antiandrogens with
fewer gastrointestinal and hepatic side-effects are mandatory.
HT after RP combined with RT and/or chemotherapy
The addition of HT to salvage RT (n = 78) was not associated with any additional increase in CSS (94). A
recent phase II trial including 74 patients with post-operative PSA recurrence showed that combined treatment
with salvage RT plus 2 years’ maximum androgen blockade (castration + oral antiandrogen) had relatively
minor long-term effects on QOL (95). However, more efficacy data are needed and the potential increase in
side-effects should be considered when combining therapies. Results are eagerly awaited from a recently
completed randomised controlled phase III study from the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG-9061)
comparing RT + placebo versus the combination of RT + bicalutamide, 150 mg daily, in the post-operative
setting.
Radiotherapy and Androgen Deprivation in Combination after Local Surgery is a recently started, large,
randomised, controlled study, sponsored by the Medical Research Council. The study addresses the timing
of RT (adjuvant vs early salvage) and the duration of HT (none vs short-term vs long-term) used together with
post-operative RT. The primary outcome measures will be CSS. Secondary outcome measures will include
OS, ADT administered outside the protocol, and reported treatment toxicity. The study also aims to assess
the long-term effect of RT after RP on sexual, urinary and bowel function, and the long-term effect of ADT
on sexual function and overall QOL. Patients will be asked to complete four short questionnaires. These
assessments will be done at baseline, and at 5 and 10 years (96).
Currently, there is no indication for chemotherapy in patients with PSA-recurrence only. Chemotherapy should
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
119
be considered as a treatment option for patients with hormone-refractory PCa, but when to initiate a cytotoxic
regime remains controversial (97).
16.5.3 Observation
Observation until the development of clinically evident metastatic disease might represent a viable option for
patients with a Gleason score < 7, PSA recurrence longer than 2 years after surgery, and a PSA DT longer than
10 months. In these patients, the median actuarial time for the development of metastasis will be 8 years, and
the median time from metastasis to death will be another 5 years (7).
16.5.4 Management of PSA relapse after RP
Recommendations
GR
Local recurrences are best treated by salvage radiation therapy with 64-66 Gy at a PSA serum level
< 0.5 ng/mL.
B
Expectant management is an option for patients with presumed local recurrence who are too unfit or
unwilling to undergo radiation therapy.
B
PSA recurrence indicative of systemic relapse is best treated by early ADT, resulting in decreased
frequency of clinical metastases if poor prognostic risk factors such as PSA-DT < 12 mos or Gleason
Score 8-10 are presen.t
B
Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogues/orchiectomy or bicalutamide, 150 mg/day, when
hormonal therapy is indicated. It has to be considered, however, that bicalutamide, 150 mg/day, is
inferior to castration in patients with M0 and M1 disease.
A
16.6
Management of PSA failures after radiation therapy
In a recent review of the data of the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE)
comprising 2336 patients with PCa, Grossfeld et al. (2002) (98) demonstrated that 92% of patients initially
irradiated received ADT for secondary treatment of PSA progression. In the absence of salvage procedures, the
mean time interval from biochemical to clinical progression is approximately 3 years.
Therapeutic options in these patients are ADT or local procedures, such as salvage RP, cryotherapy
and interstitial radiation therapy (41,99-108). Salvage RRP has not, however, gained widespread acceptance
because of its associated morbidity, namely incontinence, local recurrences and rectal injuries. However, in
well-selected patients, the procedure may result in long-term disease-free survival.
16.6.1 Salvage RP
Previously, most series reporting on salvage RP have included patients treated in the pre-PSA era without
modern radiotherapeutic techniques, when local recurrences were usually detected at a late stage.
Complications associated with the procedure were therefore quite high, with up to 65% of patients suffering
from treatment-related morbidities. Up to 60% of patients who underwent salvage RP had to undergo anterior
or total exenteration for locally extensive disease associated with a high rate of local recurrences and a mean
time to progression of only 1.3 years.
Recent reports analysing patients who were operated on during the past decade, have described far
more optimistic outcomes after salvage RP. In the series examined by Gheiler et al. (1998) (103), 40 patients
with a mean PSA of 14 ng/mL underwent salvage RP. When stratified by PSA < 10 ng/mL, the 3-year diseasespecific survival was 68% and 26%, respectively.
In the series reported by Garzotto and Wajsman 1998) (104), 24 patients underwent radical
cystoprostatectomy or RP with neoadjuvant ADT. Neoadjuvant ADT was associated with a lower rate of
positive surgical margins (21%) compared with patients in whom androgen deprivation failed and who
exhibited a positive surgical margin rate of 80%. The authors demonstrated that disease-specific survival
correlated strongly with the surgical margin status. At a mean follow-up of 5 years, the disease-specific survival
rate was 95% and 44% for those with negative and positive surgical margins, respectively.
Vaidya and Soloway (2000) (105) demonstrated a low rate of complications, good post-operative
continence and only one biochemical recurrence at 36 months after salvage RP.
Similar data have been achieved by Stephenson et al. (2004) (106), who reported on 100 consecutive
patients undergoing salvage RP associated with a very low rate of peri-operative complications. The 5-year
progression-free rates have improved, with results similar to those of standard RP in cases of similar
pathological stages. In contemporary series, the 10-year CSS and OS rates are in the ranges of 70-75% and
60-66%, respectively. In most contemporary series, organ-confined disease, negative surgical margins and
the absence of seminal vesicle and/or lymph node metastases are favourable prognostic indicators associated
120
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
with a better disease-free survival of approximately 70-80%, compared with 40-60% in patients with locally
advanced PCa (107).
Recently, Heidenreich et al. (2010) (108) reported on the oncological and functional outcome of
55 patients who underwent radical salvage therapy for locally recurrent PCA after various types of modern
state-of-the-art radiation therapy, performed in or after the year 2000. Forty (72.7%) and 15 (27.3%) patients
demonstrated organ-confined and locally advanced PCa, respectively. Eleven patients (20%) and seven patients
(14%) had lymph node metastases and positive surgical margins (PSM), respectively. On multivariate analysis,
significant predictors of organ-confined PCa with negative surgical margins were:
•
biopsy Gleason score prior to salvage RP (p = 0.02);
•
< 50% positive biopsy cores (p = 0.001);
•
PSA DT > 12 months (p = 0.001);
•
low-dose brachytherapy (p = 0.001).
Urinary continence was achieved after a mean of 8 months in basically all men after low-dose-radiation
brachytherapy; incontinence persisted in about 20% of patients who underwent external beam radiation therapy
or high-dose radiation brachytherapy. Salvage RP is a surgically challenging but effective secondary local
treatment of radio-recurrent PCa with curative intent. The identified predictive parameters will help to select
patients most suitable for salvage RP with long-term cure and good functional outcome.
16.6.1.1Summary of salvage RRP
In general, salvage RRP should be considered only in patients with a low co-morbidity, a life expectancy of at
least 10 years, an organ-confined PCa < T2, Gleason grade < 7, and pre-surgical PSA < 10 ng/mL. In all other
patients, accurate pre-surgical staging is not easily defined after radiation therapy, increasing the risk not only
for anterior and total extirpation procedures, but also for associated complications and decreased long-term
disease-specific survival.
16.6.2 Salvage cryosurgical ablation of the prostate (CSAP) for radiation failures
Salvage cryosurgery has been proposed as an alternative to salvage RP, as it has the potential advantage of
less morbidity but equal efficacy. However, only a very few studies are available, and the results are not very
promising. Pisters et al. (1997) (109) reported on 150 patients who had undergone CSAP for PSA recurrences
following radiotherapy (n = 110) or other extensive pre-treatment (n = 40). After a mean follow-up of 13.5
months, 58% of patients exhibited biochemical failure, while only 31% demonstrated undetectable PSA serum
levels. The complications associated with salvage CSAP were significant, and occurred in virtually all patients,
with the main complications being urinary incontinence (73%), obstructive symptoms (67%), impotence (72%)
and severe perineal pain (8%). After 1-year follow-up, incontinence resolved in most patients, with persistent
significant incontinence in 22% of patients (53%).
According to a recent study by Cespedes et al. (1997) (110), the risk for urinary incontinence and
impotence at least 12 months after CSAP are as high as 28% and 90%, respectively. In addition, 8-40%
of patients complained about persistent rectal pain, and an additional 4% of men had undergone surgical
procedures for the management of treatment-associated complications.
With regard to oncological outcome, recent studies demonstrated that a durable PSA-response can be
achieved in about 50% of patients with a pre-cryosurgery PSA of < 10 ng/mL (111).
In a recent multicentre study, the contemporary results of CSAP in 279 patients treated at a large
number of centres, participating in the Cryo On-Line Data Registry, were analysed (112). Pre-treatment PSA
was 7.6 +/- 8.2 ng/mL and Gleason score was 7.5 +/- 1.1 (median 7). Patients were followed for 21.6 +/- 24.9
months and 47 were followed longer than 5 years. The 5-year actuarial biochemical disease-free rate was 54.5%
+/- 4.9% (Phoenix). As predicted, based on the preservation of some prostatic tissue, 83% +/- 3.5% of patients
had a detectable PSA level > 0.2 ng/mL at 5 years. Positive biopsies were observed in 15 of the 46 patients
(32.6%) who underwent prostate biopsy after salvage cryotherapy. The incontinence rate (requiring pad use)
was 4.4%. The rectal fistula rate was 1.2% and 3.2% of patients underwent transurethral prostate resection to
remove sloughed tissue.
16.6.3 Salvage brachytherapy for radiation failures
The experience with salvage brachytherapy for radiation failures is very limited and there is only one study that
includes a representative number of patients and a mean follow-up of 64 months (113-118). Grado et al. (1999)
(114) treated 49 patients with transperineal TRUS-guided brachytherapy and reported 3- and 5-year diseasefree survival rates of 48% and 43%, respectively. Beyer (1999) (115) reported a 5-year biochemical freedom
from relapse in 34-53% of patients, with local cancer control achieved in 98% of patients. However, the
complication rate was quite severe:
•
27% became incontinent;
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
121
•
•
•
14% needed palliative transurethral resection due to acute urinary retention;
4% developed rectal ulcers;
2% required permanent colostomy.
Burri et al. (2010) (116) reported on the long-term outcomes and toxicity after salvage brachytherapy with
palladium-103 or iodine-125 for local failure after initial radiotherapy for PCA in 37. Median follow-up was 86
months (range, 2-156). The median dose to 90% of the prostate volume was 122 Gy (range, 67-166). The
10-year biochemical disease-free survival and CSS were 54% and 96%, respectively. There were three Grade
3 toxicities and one Grade 4 toxicity (10.8%). Careful patient selection for salvage BT may result in improved
outcomes and reduced toxicity.
In a similar approach, Moman et al. (2009) (117) retrospectively evaluated the outcome and toxicity
after salvage iodine-125 implantation in 31 patients with locally recurrent PCa after primary iodine-125
implantation and external beam radiotherapy. The mean follow-up was 9 years (SD +/-4). The freedom from
biochemical failure after 1- and 5-year follow-up were 51% and 20%, respectively. Fourteen (45%) patients
died of PCa after a mean (+/-SD) follow-up of 73 (+/-39) months. Grade 1, 2, or 3 toxicity of the genitourinary
tract was reported in 29%, 58% and 3% of the patients, respectively, in the acute phase, and in 16%, 39%,
and 19%, respectively, in the late phase. Grade 1, 2, or 3 toxicity of the gastrointestinal tract was reported in
45%, 10%, and 0% of the patients, respectively, in the acute phase, and in 48%, 3%, and 6%, respectively, in
the late phase. Freedom from biochemical failure after salvage iodine-125 implantation for locally recurrent PCa
after radiotherapy is limited, and both genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity occur frequently.
16.6.4 Observation
Patients with signs of local recurrence only (i.e. low-risk patients with late recurrence and a slow PSA rise)
who are not opting for second-line curative options are best managed by observation alone. A retrospective
cohort analysis of HT versus watchful waiting (WW) in 248 men with PSA failure after radiotherapy showed
no advantage for HT in the subgroup of men with a PSA DT of > 12 months after radiotherapy. The 5-year
metastasis-free survival rate was 88% with HT versus 92% with WW (p = 0.74) (118).
16.6.5 High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)
The experience of HIFU for the treatment of locally recurrent PCa after radiation therapy is limited to a few
retrospective studies only. Zacharakis et al. (119) investigated the oncological and functional outcome of
HIFU in a cohort of 31 men with biopsy -proven locally recurrent PCa following EBRT. The mean (range)
pre-operative PSA level of 7.73 (0.20-20) ng/mL. The patients were followed for a mean (range) of 7.4 (3-24)
months. Side-effects included stricture or intervention for necrotic tissue in 11 of the 31 patients (35%), urinary
tract infection or dysuria syndrome in eight (26%), and urinary incontinence in two (6%). Recto-urethral fistula
occurred in two men (7%). Overall, 71% had no evidence of disease following salvage HIFU.
In a similar approach Murat et al. (2009) (120) evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage HIFU in
167 patients with local PCA recurrence after EBRT and to determine prognostic factors for optimal patient
selection. Local cancer control was achieved with negative biopsy results in 122 (73%) patients. The median
PSA nadir was 0.19 ng/mL. The mean follow-up period was 18.1 months (range, 3-121 months). Seventy-four
patients required no HT. The actuarial 5-year OS rate was 84%. The actuarial 3-year PFS was significantly
lower in three circumstances:
1.Worsening of the pre-EBRT stage with 53%, 42%, and 25% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk
patients, respectively;
2.
An increase in the pre-HIFU PSA;
3.
Use of AD during PCa management.
In multivariate analyses, the risk ratios for intermediate- and high-risk patients were 1.32 and 1.96, respectively.
The risk ratio was 2.8 if patients had received AD. No rectal complications were observed. Urinary incontinence
accounted for 49.5% of the urinary sphincter implantations required in 11% of patients.
Urinary incontinence and the development of rectourethral fistula are the most significant
complications of salvage HIFU therapy (119-124). About 30% of men develop some type of incontinence, with
significant urinary incontinence requiring implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter occurring in about 10% of
patients. The oncological control rate after a short median follow-up of about 2 years is in the range of 30-40%.
122
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
16.6.6 Recommendation for the management of PSA relapse after radiation therapy
Recommendation
GR
Local recurrences may be treated by salvage radical prostatectomy in carefully selected patients,
who presumably demonstrate organ-confined disease, i.e. PSA < 10 ng/ml, PSA-DT > 12 months,
low-dose-radiation brachytherapy, biopsy Gleason score < 7.
B
Cryosurgical ablation of the prostate and interstitial brachytherapy are alternative procedures in
patients not suitable for surgery.
B
High-intensity focused ultrasound might be an alternative option, however, patients have to be
informed about the experimental nature of this treatment modality due to the short follow-up periods
reported.
ADT is an option in patients with presumed systemic relapse.
16.7
B
Guidelines for second-line therapy after treatment with curative intent
Presumed
local failure
after radical
prostatectomy
Presumed local
failure after
radiotherapy
Presumed
distant failure
GR
B
Patients with presumed local failure only may be candidates for salvage
radiotherapy. This should be given with at least 64-66 Gy and preferably before
PSA has risen above 0.5 ng/mL. Other patients are best offered a period of active
surveillance (active monitoring), with possible hormonal therapy later on.
C
Selected patients may be candidates for salvage radical prostatectomy and they
should be informed about the high risk of complications, such as incontinence
and erectile dysfunction. Salvage prostatectomy should only be performed in
experienced centres.
Cryosurgical ablation of the prostate represents another local treatment option in
patients not suitable for surgery.
Other patients are best offered a period of active surveillance (active monitoring),
with possible hormonal therapy later on.
B
There is some evidence that early hormonal therapy may be of benefit in distant
(+/- local) failure delaying progression, and possibly achieving a survival benefit in
comparison with delayed therapy. The results are controversial. Local therapy is not
recommended except for palliative reasons.
16.8
References
1.
Grossfeld GD, Stier DM, Flanders SC, et al. Use of second treatment following definitive local therapy
for prostate cancer: data from the CaPSURE database. J Urol 1998 Oct;1609(4):1398-404.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9751363
Lu-Yao GL, Potosky AL, Albertsen PC, et al. Follow-up prostate cancer treatments after radical
prostatectomy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996 Feb;88(3-4):166-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8632490
Fowler FJ Jr, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao GL, et al. Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after
radical prostatectomy. The National Medicare Experience: 1988-1990 (updated June 1993). Urology
1993 Dec;42(6):622-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8256394
Partin AW, Pearson JD, Landis PK, et al. Evaluation of serum prostate-specific antigen velocity
after radical prostatectomy to distinguish local recurrence from distant metastases. Urology 1994
May;43(5):649-59.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7513108
Bott SRJ. Management of recurrent disease after radical prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
2004;7(3):211-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15278094
Polascik TJ, Oesterling JE, Partin AW. Prostate specific antigen: a decade of discovery–what we have
learned and where we are going. J Urol 1999 Aug;162(2):293-306.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10411025
Pound CR, Partin AW, Eisenberger MA, et al. Natural history of progression after PSA elevation
following radical prostatectomy. JAMA 1999 May;281(17):1591-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10235151
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
123
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23. 24.
25.
124
Moul JW. Prostate specific antigen only progression of prostate cancer. J Urol 2000 Jun;163(6):
1632-42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10799151
Amling CL, Bergstralh EJ, Blute ML, et al. Defining prostate specific antigen progression after radical
prostatectomy: what is the most appropriate cut point? J Urol 2001 Apr; 65(4):1146-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11257657
Stephenson AJ, Kattan MW, Eastham JA, et al. Defining biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer
after radical prostatectomy: a proposal for a standardized definition. J Clin Oncol 2006 Aug; 24(24):
3973-78.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16921049
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel. Consensus statement:
guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1997 Mar;37(5):1035-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9169810
Roach M 3rd, Hanks G, Thames H Jr, et al. Defining biochemical failure following radiotherapy with
or without hormonal therapy in men with clinically localized prostate cancer: recommendations of the
RTOG-ASTRO Phoenix Consensus Conference. Int J Radiat Biol Phys 65:965-74.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16798415
Trapasso JG, deKernion JB, Smith RB, et al. The incidence and significance of detectable levels of
serum prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1994 Nov;152(5 Pt 2):1821-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7523728
Lange PH, Ercole CJ, Lightner DJ, et al. The value of serum prostate specific antigen determinations
before and after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1989 Apr;141(4):873-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2467013
Cox JD, Gallagher MJ, Hammond EH, et al. Consensus statements on radiation therapy of prostate
cancer: guidelines for prostate re-biopsy after radiation and for radiation therapy with rising prostatespecific antigen levels after radical prostatectomy. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and
Oncology Consensus Panel. J Clin Oncol 1999 Apr;17(4):1155.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10561174
Taylor JM, Griffith KA, Sandler HM. Definitions of biochemical failure in prostate cancer following
radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001 Aug;50(5):1212-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11483331
Öbek C, Neulander E, Sadek S, et al. Is there a role for digital rectal examination in the follow up of
patients after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 1):762-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10458361
Cher ML, Bianco FJ Jr, Lam JS, et al. Limited role of radionuclide bone scintigraphy in patients with
prostate specific antigen elevations after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1998 Oct;160(4):1387-91.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9751361
Kane CJ, Amling CL, Johnstone PAS, et al. Limited value of bone scintigraphy and computed
tomography in assessing biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. Urology 2003 Mar;61(3):
607-11.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12639656
Gomez P, Manoharan M, Kim SS, et al. Radionuclide bone scintigraphy in patients with biochemical
recurrence after radical prostatectomy: when is it indicated? BJU Int 2004 Aug;94(3):299-302.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15291855
Johnstone PAS, Tarman GJ, Riffenburgh R. Yield of imaging and scintigraphy assessing biochemical
failure in prostate cancer patients. Urol Oncol 1997;3108-14.
Sella T, Schwartz LH, Swindle PW, et al. Suspected local recurrence after radical prostatectomy:
endorectal coil MR imaging. Radiology 2004 May;231(2):279-385.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15064390
Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Scotti L, et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla to assess
local recurrence following radical prostatectomy using T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced imaging.
Eur Radiol 2009 Mar;19(3):761-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18825386
Kotzerke J, Volkmer BG, Neumaier B, et al. Carbon-11 acetate positron emission tomography can
detect local recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002 Oct;29(10):1380-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12271422
Martorana G, Schiavina R, Corti B, et al. 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized
tomography for tumor localization of primary prostate cancer in comparison with 12-core biopsy.
J Urol 2006 Sep;176(3):954-60; discussion 960.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16890665
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
26. 27.
28.
29.
30.
31. 32. 33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Vees H, Buchegger F, Albrecht S, et al. 18F-choline and/or 11C-acetate positron emission
tomography: detection of residual or progressive subclinical disease at very low prostate-specific
antigen values (<1 ng/mL) after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2007 Jun;99(6):1415-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17428249
Rinnab L, Mottaghy FM, Simon J, et al. [11C]Choline PET/CT for targeted salvage lymph node
dissection in patients with biochemical recurrence after primary curative therapy for prostate cancer.
Preliminary results of a prospective study. Urol Int 2008;81(2):191-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18758218
Krause BJ, Souvatzoglou M, Tuncel M, et al. The detection rate of [11C]Choline-PET/CT depends on
the serum PSA-value in patients with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol
Imaging 2008 Jan;35(1):18-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17891394
Husarik DB, Miralbell R, Dubs M, et al. Evaluation of [(18)F]-choline PET/CT for staging and restaging
of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008 Feb;35(2):253-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17926036
Pelosi E, Arena V, Skanjeti A, et al. Role of whole-body 18F-choline PET/CT in disease detection
in patients with biochemical relapse after radical treatment for prostate cancer. Radiol Med 2008
Sep;113(6):895-904.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18414809
Castellucci P, Fuccio C, Nanni C, et al.Influence of trigger PSA and PSA kinetics on 11C-Choline PET/
CT detection rate in patients with biochemical relapse after radical prostatectomy. J Nucl Med 2009
Sep;50(9):1394-400.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690023
Schilling D, Schlemmer HP, Wagner PH, et al. Histological verification of 11C-choline-positron
emission/computed tomography-positive lymph nodes in patients with biochemical failure after
treatment for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008 Aug;102:446-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18410442
Reske SN, Blumstein NM, Glatting G. [11C]choline PET/CT imaging in occult local relapse of prostate
cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008 Jan;35:9-17.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828534
Hinkle GH, Burgers JK, Neal CE, et al. Multicentre radioimmunoscintigraphic evaluation of patients
with prostate carcinoma using indium-111 capromab pendetide. Cancer 1998 Aug;83(4):739-47.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9708939
Levesque PE, Nieh PT, Zinman LN, et al. Radiolabelled monoclonal antibody indium 111-labeled CYT356 localizes extraprostatic recurrent carcinoma after prostatectomy. Urology 1998 Jun;51(6):978-84.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9609636
Kahn D, Williams RD, Manyak MJ, et al. 111Indium capromab pendetide in the evaluation of patients
with residual or recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. The ProstScint Study Group.
J Urol 1998 Jun;159(6):2041-6; discussion 2046-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9598514
Raj GV, Partin AW, Polascik TJ. Clinical utility of Indium 111-capromab pendetide immunoscintigraphy
in the detection of early, recurrent prostate carcinoma after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2002
Feb;94(4):987-96.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11920467
Foster LS, Jajodia P, Fournier G Jr, et al. The value of prostate specific antigen and transrectal
ultrasound guided biopsy in detecting prostatic fossa recurrences following radical prostatectomy.
J Urol 1993 May;149(5):1024-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7683341
Fowler JE Jr, Brooks J, Pandey P, et al. Variable histology of anastomotic biopsies with detectable
prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1995 Mar;153(3 Pt 2):1011-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7531783
Connolly JA, Shinohara K, Presti JC Jr, et al. Local recurrence after radical prostatectomy:
characteristics in size, location, and relationship to prostate-specific antigen and surgical margins.
Urology 1996 Feb;47(2):225-31.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8607239
Heidenreich A, Semrau R, Thüer D, et al. Radical salvage prostatectomy: Treatment of local
recurrence of prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Urologe A 2008 Nov;47(11):1441-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18806991
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
125
42. 43. 44. 45.
46.
47.
48.
49. 50. 51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
126
Pucar D, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, et al. Prostate cancer: correlation of MR imaging and MR
spectroscopy with pathologic findings after radiation therapy-initial experience. Radiology 2005
Aug;236:545-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15972335
Rouvière O, Valette O, Grivolat S, et al. Recurrent prostate cancer after external beam radiotherapy:
value of contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI in localizing intraprostatic tumor–correlation with biopsy
findings. Urology 2004 May;63:922-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15134982
Sala E, Eberhardt SC, Akin O, et al. Endorectal MR imaging before salvage prostatectomy: tumor
localization and staging. Radiology 2006 Jan;238:176-83.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16424250
Thompson IM Jr, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathologically advanced
prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006 Nov;296:2329-35.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17105795
Bolla M, Van Poppel H, Collette L, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a
randomised controlled trial (EORTC trial 22911). Lancet 2005 Aug;366:572-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16099293
Thompson IM, Tangen CM, Paradelo J, et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for pathological T3N0M0 prostate
cancer significantly reduces risk of metastases and improves survival: long-term followup of a
randomized clinical trial. J Urol 2009 Mar;181:956-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19167731
Wiegel T, Bottke D, Steiner U, et al. Phase III postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy after radical
prostatectomy compared with radical prostatectomy alone in pT3 prostate cancer with postoperative
undetectable prostate-specific antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95. J Clin Oncol 2009 Jun;27:2924-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19433689
Wu JJ, King SC, Montana GS, McKinstry CA, et al. The efficacy of postprostatectomy radiotherapy
in patients with an isolated elevation of serum prostate-specific antigen. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
1995 May;32(2):317-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7538500
Schild SE, Buskirk SJ, Wong WW, et al. The use of radiotherapy or patients with isolated elevation of
prostate specific antigen following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1996 Nov;156(5):1725-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8863580
Forman JD, Meetze K, Pontes E, et al. Therapeutic irradiation for patients with an elevated
postprostatectomy prostate specific antigen level. J Urol 1997 Oct;158(4):1436-9; discussion 1439-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9302138
Nudell DM, Grossfeld GD, Weinberg VK, et al. Radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: treatment
outcomes and failure patterns. Urology 1999 Dec;54(6):1049-57.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10604707
Carroll P. Rising PSA after a radical treatment. Eur Urol 2001;40(Suppl 2):9-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684859
Cadeddu JA, Partin AW, DeWeese TL, et al. Long-term results of radiation therapy for prostate cancer
recurrence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1998 Jan;159(1):173-7;discussion 177-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9400465
Haab F, Meulemans A, Boccon-Gibbod L, et al. Effect of radiation therapy after radical prostatectomy
on serum prostate-specific antigen measured by an ultrasensitive assay. Urology 1995 Jun;45(6):
1022-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7539559
Egewa S, Matsumoto K, Suyama K, et al. Limited suppression of prostate specific antigen after
salvage radiotherapy for its isolated elevation after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1999 Jan;53(1):
148-55.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9886604
Vicini FA, Ziaja EL, Kestin LL, et al. Treatment outcome with adjuvant and salvage irradiation after
radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Urology 1999 Jul;54(1):111-17.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10414736
MacDonald OK, Schild SE, Vora S, et al. Salvage radiotherapy for men with isolated rising PSA or local
palpable recurrence after radical prostatectomy: do outcomes differ? Urology 2004 Oct;64(4):760-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491716
Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Kattan MW, et al. Predicting outcome of salvage radiation therapy for
recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2007 May;25(15):2035-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17513807
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Swanson GP, Hussey MA, Tangen CM, et al. Predominant treatrment failure in postprostatectomy
patients is local: analysis of patterns of treatment failure in SWOG 8794. J Clin Oncol 2007
Jun;25(16):222-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17538167
Trabulsi EJ, Valicenti RK, Hanlon AL, et al. A multi-institutional matched-control analysis of adjuvant
and salvage postoperative radiation therapy for pT3-4N0 prostate cancer. Urology 2008 Dec;72:
1298-302.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18672274
Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ, et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy
vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2008
Jun;299:2760-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18560003
King CR, Spiotto MT. Improved outcomes with higher doses for salvage radiotherapy after
prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008 May;71:23-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18207668
King CR, Kapp DS. Radiotherapy after prostatectomy: is the evidence for dose escalation out there?
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008 Jun;71:346-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18234451
Schiffner DC, Gottschalk AR, Lometti M, et al. Daily electronic portal imaging of implanted gold seed
fiducials in patients undergoing radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
2007 Feb;67:610-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17236978
Mitchell DM, Perry L, Smith S, et al. Assessing the effect of a contouring protocol on
postprostatectomy radiotherapy clinical target volumes and interphysician variation. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 2009 Nov;75:990-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345515
Wiltshire KL, Brock KK, Haider MA, et al. Anatomic boundaries of the clinical target volume (prostate
bed) after radical prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007 Nov;69:1090-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17967303
Poortmans P, Bossi A, Vandeputte K, et al. Guidelines for target volume definition in post-operative
radiotherapy for prostate cancer, on behalf of the EORTC Radiation Oncology Group. Radiother Oncol
2007 Aug;84:121-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17706307
Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, et al. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation
after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer.
N Engl J Med 1999 Dec;341:1781-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10588962
Messing EM, Manola J, Yao J, et al. Immediate versus deferred androgen deprivation treatment in
patients with node positive prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy.
Lancet Oncol 2006 Jun;7:472-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16750497
[No authors listed] The Medical Research Council Prostate Cancer Working Party Investigators Group.
Immediate versus deferred treatment for advanced prostatic cancer: initials results of the Medical
Research Council Trial. Br J Urol 1997;79:235-46.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9052476
Studer UE, Whelan P, Albrecht W, et al. Immediate or deferred androgen deprivation for patients
with prostate cancer not suitable for local treatment with curative intent: European Organisation for
Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Trial 30891. J Clin Oncol 2006 Apr;24:1868-76.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16622261
McLeod DG, Iversen P, See WA, et al. Bicalutamide 150mg plus standard care vs standard care alone
for early prostate cancer. BJU Int 2006 Feb;97:247-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16430622
Zincke H, Lau W, Bergstralh E, et al. Role of early adjuvant hormonal therapy after radical
prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2001 Dec;166:2208-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11696737
Seay TM, Blute ML, Zincke H. Long-term outcome in patients with pTxN+ adenocarcinoma of prostate
treated with radical prostatectomy and early androgen ablation. J Urol 1998 Feb;159:357-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9649239
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
127
76.
77.
78.
79.
80. 81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
128
Cheng L, Zincke H, Blute ML, et al. Risk of prostate carcinoma death in patients with lymph node
metastasis. Cancer 2001 Jan;91:66-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11148561
Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Siddiqui S, et al. Long-term outcome after radical prostatectomy for
patients with lymph node positive prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2007
Sep;178 (3 Part 1):864-70; discussion 870-1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17631342
Spiess PE, Lee AK, Busby JE, et al. Surgically managed lymph node-positive prostate cancer: does
delaying hormonal therapy worsen the outcome? BJU Int 2007 Feb;99:321-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155975
Wong YN, Freedland S, Egleston B, et al. Role of androgen deprivation therapy for nodepositive
prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009 Jan;27:100-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047295
Moul JW, Wu H, Sun L, et al. Early versus delayed hormonal therapy for prostate specific antigen only
recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.
J Urol 2004 Mar;171:1141-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14767288
Siddiqui SA, Boorjian SA, Inman B, et al. Timing of androgen deprivation therapy and its impact on
survival after radical prostatectomy: a matched cohort study. J Urol 2008 May;179:1830-7;
discussion 1837.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18353378
Makarov DV, Humphreys EB, Mangold LA, et al. The natural history of men treated with deferred
androgen deprivation therapy in whom metastatic prostate cancer developed following radical
prostatectomy. J Urol 2008 Jan;179:156-61; discussion 161-2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18001801
Wirth M, Tyrrell C, Wallace M, et al. Bicalutamide (Casodex) 150 mg as immediate therapy in
patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer significantly reduces the risk of disease
progression. Urology 2001 Aug;58(2):146-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11489683
Wirth M. Delaying/reducing the risk of clinical tumour progression after primary curative procedures.
Eur Urol 2001;40(Suppl 2):17-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684860
Moul JW. Treatment of PSA only recurrence of prostate cancer after prior local therapy. Curr Pharm
Des 2006;12:785-98.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16515495
Conti PD, Atallah AN, Arruda H, et al. Intermittent versus continuous androgen suppression for
prostatic cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 Oct;(4):CD005009.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943832
Goldenberg SL, Gleave ME, Taylor D, et al. Clinical experience with intermittent androgen suppression
in prostate cancer: minimum of 3 years’ follow-up. Mol Urol 1999;3(3):287-92.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10851335
Higano CS, Ellis W, Russell K, et al. Intermittent androgen suppression with leuprolide and flutamide
for prostate cancer: a pilot study. Urology 1996 Nov;48(5):800-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8911533
Tunn UW. Intermittent endocrine therapy of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 1996;30(Suppl 1):22-5,
discussion 38-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8977986
Grossfeld GD, Small EJ, Carroll PR. Intermittent androgen deprivation for clinically localized prostate
cancer: initial experience. Urology 1998 Jan;51(1):137-44.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9457309
Tunn U, Eckhart O, Kienle E, et al. Intermittent androgen deprivation in patients with PSA-relapse
after radical prostatectomy–first results of a randomized prospective phase III clinical trial (AUO study
AP06/95). Eur Urol (Suppl) 2003;1:24, no. 86.
Ziada AM, Crawford ED. Advanced prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 1999
Jan;2(S1):21-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12496853
Harding P, Moul JW, McLeod DG. Combination flutamide and finasteride in PSA-only recurrence after
prior local prostate cancer therapy. J Urol 1998;159(Suppl):130 (abstr).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108. 109.
110. 111. Trock BJ, Han M, Freedland SJ, et al. Prostate cancer-specific survival following salvage radiotherapy
vs observation in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2008 Jun;
299:2760-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18560003
Pearce A, Choo R, Danjoux C, et al. Effect of combined treatment with salvage radiotherapy plus
androgen suppression on quality of life in patients with recurrent prostate cancer after radical
prostatectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006 May;65:78-83.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16563657
Parker C, Clarke N, Logue J, et al. RADICALS (Radiotherapy and Androgen Deprivation in
Combination after Local Surgery). Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2007 Apr;19:167-71.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17359901
Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2008 Jan;53:68-80.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17920184
Grossfeld GD, Li YP, Lubeck DP, et al. Predictors of secondary cancer treatment in patients receiving
local therapy for prostate cancer: data from cancer of the prostate strategic urologic research
endeavor. J Urol 2002 Aug;168(2):530-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12131303
Ahlering TE, Lieskovsky G, Skinner DG. Salvage surgery plus androgen deprivation for radioresistant
prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1992 Mar;147(3 Pt 2):900-2.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1538492
Zincke H. Radical prostatectomy and exenterative procedures for local failure after radiotherapy with
curative intent: comparison of outcomes. J Urol 1992 Mar;147(3 Pt 2):894-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1538491
Lerner SE, Blute ML, Zincke H. Critical evaluation of salvage surgery for radio-recurrent/resistant
prostate cancer. J Urol 1995 Sep;154(3):1103-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7543608
Rogers E, Ohori M, Kassabian S, et al. Salvage radical prostatectomy: outcome measured by serum
prostate specific antigen levels. J Urol 1995 Jan;153(1):104-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7526002
Gheiler EL, Tefilli MV, Tiguert R, et al. Predictors for maximal outcome in patients undergoing salvage
surgery for radio-recurrent prostate cancer. Urology 1998 May;51(5):789-95.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9610593
Garzotto M, Wajsman Z. Androgen deprivation with salvage surgery for radiorecurrent prostate
cancer: result of a 5-year follow-up. J Urol 1998 Mar;159(3):950-4;discussion 954-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9474190
Vaidya A, Soloway MS. Salvage radical prostatectomy for radiorecurrent prostate cancer: morbidity
revisited. J Urol 2000 Dec;164(6):1998-2001.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11061900
Stephenson AJ, Scardino PT, Bianco FJ, et al. Morbidity and functional outcomes of salvage radical
prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy. J Urol 2004 Dec;172
(6 Pt 1):2239-43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15538239
Heidenreich A, Ohlmann C, Ozgür E, et al. [Functional and oncological outcome of salvage
prostatectomy of locally recurrent prostate cancer following radiation therapy] Urologe A 2006 Apr;
45(4):474-81. [Article in German]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16465521
Heidenreich A, Richter S, Thüer D, et al. Prognostic parameters, complications, and oncologic and
functional outcome of salvage radical prostatectomy for locally recurrent prostate cancer after
21st-century radiotherapy. Eur Urol 2010 Mar;57(3):437-43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19303197
Pisters LL, von Eschenbach AC, Scott SM, et al. The efficacy and complications of salvage
cryotherapy of the prostate. J Urol 1997Mar;157(3):921-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9072600
Cespedes RD, Pisters LL, von Eschenbach AC, et al. Long-term follow-up of incontinence and
obstruction after salvage cryosurgical ablation of the prostate: results in 143 patients. J Urol 1997
Jan;157(1):237-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8976261
Pisters LL, Rewcastle JC, Donnelly BJ, et al. Salvage prostate cryoablation: initial results from the cryo
on-line data registry. J Urol 2008 Aug;180(2):559-63.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18554664
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
129
112.
113.
114.
115.
116. 117. 118.
119. 120. 121. Wallner KE, Nori D, Morse MJ, et al. 125iodine reimplantation for locally progressive prostatic
carcinoma. J Urol 1990 Sep;144(3):704-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2388332
Parker CC, Dearnaley DP. The management of PSA failure after radical radiotherapy for localized
prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 1998 Nov;49(2):103-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10052875
Grado GL, Collins JM, Kriegshauser JS, et al. Salvage brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer
after radiotherapy failure. Urology 1999 Jan;53(1):2-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9886580
Beyer DC. Permanent brachytherapy as salvage treatment for recurrent prostate cancer. Urology 1999
Nov;54(5):880-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10565751
Burri RJ, Stone NN, Unger P, et al. Long-term outcome and toxicity of salvage brachytherapy for local
failure after initial radiotherapy for prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol 2010 Feb 4. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20138442
Moman MR, van der Poel HG, Battermann JJ, et al. Treatment outcome and toxicity after salvage
125-I implantation for prostate cancer recurrences after primary 125-I implantation and external beam
radiotherapy. Brachytherapy 2010 Apr-Jun;9(2):119-25.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19850536
Pinover WH, Horwitz EM, Hanlon AL, et al. Validation of a treatment policy for patients with prostate
specific antigen failure after three-dimensional conformal prostate radiation therapy. Cancer 2003
Feb;97(4):1127-33.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12569615
Zacharakis E, Ahmed HU, Ishaq A, et al. The feasibility and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound
as salvage therapy for recurrent prostate cancer following external beam radiotherapy. BJU Int 2008
Sep;102(7):786-92.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18564135
Murat FJ, Poissonnier L, Rabilloud M, et al. Mid-term results demonstrate salvage high-intensity
focused ultrasound (HIFU) as an effective and acceptably morbid salvage treatment option for locally
radiorecurrent prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009 Mar;55(3):640-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18508188
Ahmed HU, Ishaq A, Zacharakis E, et al. Rectal fistulae after salvage high-intensity focused ultrasound
for recurrent prostate cancer after combined brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy. BJU Int
2009 Feb;103(3):321-3.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19021611
17. CASTRATION-REFRACTORY PCa (CRPC)
17.1 Background
Cancer of the prostate is a heterogeneous disease. Our knowledge of the mechanisms involved in androgen
independence remains incomplete (1-5), but is starting to become clearer (6,7). It is known that androgen
ablation provides a selective advantage to androgen-independent cells that grow and eventually comprise
most of the tumour. An alteration in normal androgen signalling is thought to be central to the pathogenesis of
androgen-independent PCa (8).
It is thought that androgen independence is mediated through two main, overlapping, mechanisms,
which are androgen-receptor(AR)-independent and AR-dependent.
17.1.1 Androgen-receptor-independent mechanisms
Androgen-receptor-independent mechanisms may be associated with the deregulation of apoptosis through
the deregulation of oncogenes. High levels of bcl-2 expression are seen with greater frequency as PCa
progresses and the regulation of microtubule integrity may be a mechanism through which bcl-2 induces its
anti-apoptotic effect (9-11). Indeed, most active chemotherapeutics in castration-refractory prostate cancer
(CRPC) work by inhibiting microtubule formation. The tumour suppressor gene p53 is more frequently mutated
in androgen-independent PCa. Over-expression of bcl-2 and p53 in prostatectomy specimens has been shown
to predict an aggressive clinical course (12-14). Clinical trials are underway to target the bcl-2 pathway (15),
as the MDM2 oncogene (16) and the PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog) suppressor gene may also be
involved (17).
130
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
17.1.2 AR-dependent mechanisms
Direct AR-dependent mechanisms comprise the main pathway. Ligand-independent AR activation has been
suspected, such as the tyrosine kinase activated pathway (IGF-1, KGF, EGF). Epidermal growth factor (EGF)
is a potent mitogen of prostate stromal and epithelial cells. It is produced in high levels locally and acts as a
paracrine stimulator. In AR-independent tumours, autocrine stimulation may become more important, which
could allow unregulated growth (18-20).
Androgen receptor amplification and overexpression are observed in one-third of HRPC tissues (2123) and may lead to AR hypersensitivity. Androgen receptor mutations may lead to a functional change in
AR function (3-5,24). At the same time, there is an intracellular increase in androgens from in-situ conversion
(25,26). This increase may be secondary to an increase in the intracellular enzymes involved in intracellular
androgen synthesis (27).
Because AR mutations are found in only a subpopulation of tumour cells, they are unlikely to be responsible
for the entire spectrum of the AR-independent state (28). The AR mutations might be related to the selective
pressure of anti-androgens (29). The recent discovery of gene fusion between the androgen-driven TMPRSS2
and the EGR-ETS oncogene family (30) raises the question of oncogene regulation through androgen regulation
pathways. In gene fusion, an androgen-responsive element from an androgene-regulated gene becomes
associated with genes that are usually not androgen-regulated, so that they too become subject to androgen
regulation. Currently, their implication in CRPC is hypothetical. Even in castrated patients, metastatic tissues
have repeatedly shown high levels of androgens, suggesting a high level of intracrine synthesis (27,31). It is
possible that a high intraprostatic cholesterol level can activate specific androgen pathways (1).
17.2
Definition of relapsing prostate cancer after castration
The previously term, ‘hormone-refractory prostate cancer’ referred to a very heterogeneous disease. It included
different patient cohorts with significantly different median survival times (Table 20).
Table 20: E
stimated natural mean survival of patients with HRPC presenting with different clinical
scenarios
Patient characteristics
Estimated mean survival
Asymptomatic PSA
• No metastases
24-27 months
• Minimal metastases
16-18 months
• Extensive metastases
9-12 months
Symptomatic PSA
• Minimal metastases
14-16 months
• Extensive metastases
9-12 months
The precise definition of recurrent or relapsed PCa remains controversial and several groups have recently
published practical recommendations for defining CRPC (31-34).
Various different terms have been used to describe prostate cancers that relapse after initial hormonal ablation
therapy, including HRPC, androgen-independent cancers and hormone-independent cancers (1). The castrateresistant, but still hormone-sensitive, PCa (CRPC) has been clearly characterised, with the new drugs targeting
either the AR, such as the MDV3100, or androgen synthesis, via the CYP 17 inhibitor (see below Section
17.8.5.2) (35,36). It is important to differentiate CRPC from true HRPC. Although CRPC responds to secondary
hormonal manipulations, including anti-androgen withdrawal, oestrogens and corticosteroids, true HRPC is
resistant to all hormonal measures. Table 21 lists the key defining factors of CRPC.
Table 21: Definition of CRPC
•
•
•
•
Castrate seam levels of testosterone (testosterone < 50 ng/dL or < 1.7 nmol/L)
Three consecutive rises of PSA, 1 week apart, resulting in two 50% increases over the nadir,
with a PSA > 2 ng/mL
Anti-androgen withdrawal for at least 4 weeks for flutamide and for at least 6 weeks for
bicalutamide*
PSA progression, despite consecutive hormonal manipulations†
*E
ither anti-androgen withdrawal or one secondary hormonal manipulation should have been done in order to
fulfil the criteria for CRPC.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
131
† Progression of osseous lesions: progression or appearance of two or more lesions on bone scan or soft tissue
lesions using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) and with nodes > 2 cm in diameter.
17.3
Assessing treatment outcome in androgen-independent PCa
In general, the therapeutic outcome should be assessed using the guidelines for the evaluation of treatment
response in solid tumours, recently published by the RECIST group (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid
Tumours) (37). However, 80-90% of patients do not have bi-dimensionally measurable disease. Patients with
primarily soft tissue cancers often have a different prognosis to those with only osseous metastases.
Osteoblastic bone metastases remain difficult to quantify accurately. Magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) might be useful for assessing axial metastases (38). Since the cause of death in PCa patients is often
unreliable, a more valid end-point might be overall survival (OS) rather than a disease-specific one (39).
17.3.1 PSA level as marker of response
Many contemporary studies use PSA as a marker of response, even though there is no consensus about the
magnitude and duration of a decline in PSA level. Although PSA is used as a rapid screening tool to test new
agents for activity, there is conflicting evidence about the role of PSA as a response marker. Both the vaccine
trials, Sipuleucel-T (Provenge) (40) and the TRICOM (PROSTVAC) study (41), demonstrated a significant OS
benefit without any PSA change, raising questions about the value of PSA response for non-hormonal noncytotoxic drugs (42).
In addition, wide fluctuations have been seen in PSA values due to a transient effect of drugs on PSA
production. The effect of drugs on PSA expression should be considered when interpreting PSA response
data, which should be viewed together with other clinical data (43-50).
Nevertheless, it has been reproducibly shown that > 50% PSA decline in pre-treatment PSA following
therapy carries a significant survival advantage (51,52). Kelly et al. (51) reported a statistically significant
survival advantage in 110 patients with > 50% PSA decline (> 25 months) versus those without a > 50% PSA
decline (8.6 months). Smith et al. (52) showed that a PSA decline > 50% for at least 8 weeks resulted in a
longer mean survival time of 91 weeks versus 38 weeks in patients showing a smaller PSA reduction.
An improved PSA response was also associated with prolonged survival in the TAX 327 study, with a
median survival of 33 months when the PSA was normalised (< 4 ng/mL) versus 15.8 months for an abnormal
PSA. This study also showed that a PSA response was not a surrogate marker for survival; even though the
same PSA response rate was found in both docetaxel arms (45%), improved survival only occurred with the
3-weekly docetaxel regimen. According to the most recent evaluation of the TAX 327 study, a PSA detection of
> 30% is associated with a significant survival benefit (103).
17.3.2 Other parameters
The evaluation of molecular markers is just beginning. It includes a possible correlation between the positive
findings of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and poor survival (53), though these data
must be corroborated before any clinical recommendations can be made. Another, probably more interesting,
tool is the circulating tumour cell count (CTC count), which has been developed in parallel with abiraterone. The
CTC count has been clearly related to survival in several trials (54-56) and may become a surrogate marker for
survival. The FDA has recently approved an assay for CTC.
In patients with symptomatic osseous lesions, pain reduction or complete pain relief may be used as
parameters to assess palliative therapeutic response (57).
17.3.3 Trial end-points
An increasing number of investigators advocate subjective end-points. However, investigators should currently
apply the following:
•
Use clearly defined end-points in trials, sufficiently powered to answer the hypothesis.
•
Report each response parameter individually, rather than as a complete or partial response.
•
Only use PSA response with other clinical parameters of response.
•
Consider QoL end-points independently in symptomatic patients.
However, in everyday practice, the evaluation of treatment response must be based on symptom improvement,
prolonged survival, or other pre-defined targets.
132
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
17.4
Recommendations for assessing therapeutic response
Recommendations
PSA decline > 30% maintained for 8 weeks is associated with a significantly better outcome
compared to a PSA decline < 30%.
In non-osseous metastases from HRPC, assessment should adhere to the RECIST criteria.
In patients with advanced symptomatic metastatic HRPC, therapeutic response can be assessed
best by improvement of symptoms.
LE
1a
1b
1b
RECIST = Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours
17.5
Androgen deprivation in castration-independent PCa
The existence of androgen-independent PCa shows that disease progression occurs despite castration. The
castration levels of testosterone must therefore be documented and a serum testosterone level < 50 ng/dL (1.7
nmol/L) should be documented at initial relapse on hormonal therapy (32,58).
Continued testicular androgen suppression in CRPC has a minimal overall effect. The
recommendation to continue androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with LHRH analogues, despite PSA
progression, is based on the data of Manni et al. (59). This study demonstrated significantly lower survival
rates in patients without complete androgen blockade (CAB). However, these data have been challenged by
two recent trials that showed only a marginal survival benefit for patients remaining on LHRH analogues during
second- and third-line therapies (60,61).
In addition, a provocative experimental approach towards testosterone replacement in CRPC
has raised questions regarding the true benefits of continuing with LHRH analogues. The rationale behind
testosterone replacement is the repression of tumour growth by high doses of testosterone. At least two phase
I trials have been recently published (62,63) demonstrating the feasibility of this experimental approach. Some
PSA-based responses have been observed and a phase III trial is currently underway.
However, in the absence of prospective data, the modest potential benefits of a continuing castration
outweigh the minimal risk of treatment. Androgen suppression should therefore be continued indefinitely in
these patients.
17.6
Secondary hormonal therapy
For the patient with progressive disease after ADT, there are many therapeutic options. They include antiandrogen withdrawal, addition of anti-androgens, anti-androgen replacement, oestrogenic compounds,
adrenolytic agents, and novel approaches (64). Figure 1 summarises the treatment modalities and expected
responses.
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
133
Figure 1: Flowsheet of the potential therapeutic options after PSA progression following initial hormonal
therapy
Mean Duration
Metastic prostate cancer
PSA ⇓ > 50%
of Response
100%
LHRH-analogues
60-80%
Addition of antiandrogens
Subcapsular
orchiectomy
Addition of antiandrogens
36 months
CAB
Anti-androgen
withdrawn
4-6 months
25-40%
Substitution of anti-androgen
4-6 months
30-40%
Anti-androgen withdrawal
5-6 months
40-60%
Secondary hormonal manipulation such as adrenal
testosterone inhibitors, low-dose DES, steroids
4-8 months
50-70%
Non-hormonal therapy such as chemotherapy
10-12 months
LHRH = luteinising hormone releasing hormone; CAB = complete androgen blockade;
DES = diethylstilboesterol.
17.7
Anti-androgen withdrawal syndrome
In 1993, Kelly and Scher (65) reported clinical and PSA responses in men who discontinued flutamide therapy
upon development of progressive disease. The anti-androgen withdrawal syndrome was a critical discovery in
understanding the biology of androgen independence, interpreting clinical trials, and treating patients (66-69).
Approximately one-third of patients respond to anti-androgen withdrawal, as indicated by a >
50% PSA decrease, for a median duration of approximately 4 months (Table 22). Anti-androgen withdrawal
responses have also been reported with bicalutamide and megestrol acetate (70-76). Recently, in the SWOG
9426 trial, PSA progression despite CAB was reported in a subgroup of 210 patients with a tumour stage of
M0 or M1 (77). A response was observed in 21%, even though there was no radiographic response. Median
progression-free survival (PFS) was 3 months, with 19% (all MO) having 12 months’ or greater PFS. Factors
associated with increased PFS and OS were a longer period of non-steroidal use, lower PSA at baseline and
M0-stage. These results were obtained with patients on CAB following androgen withdrawal treatment. No
data were available on the withdrawal effect following second-line anti-androgen treatment.
In conclusion, androgen withdrawal should be systematically considered as a first-line modality in
relapsing patients, even if its efficacy is limited (LE: 2).
Table 22: Frequency and duration of PSA response following anti-androgen withdrawal
Anti-androgen
Flutamide
No. of
> 50% decrease in PSA
patients
No. of patients (%)
57
16 (28%)
Duration (months)
4.0
Flutamide
82
12 (15%)
3.5
Flutamide
39
11 (28%)
3.7
Flutamide
21
7 (33%)
3.7
Bicalutamide
17
5 (29%)
5.0
Combined results
210
44 (21%)
3 (median)
134
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
17.8
Treatment alternatives after initial hormonal therapy
Except in patients with non-castration testosterone levels, it is difficult to predict which subset of patients is
most likely to respond to secondary hormonal strategies.
17.8.1 Bicalutamide
Bicalutamide is a non-steroidal anti-androgen with a dose response, with higher doses producing a greater
reduction in PSA level (78). The largest cohort so far is based on 52 CRPC patients treated with bicalutamide,
150 mg (79). A palliative effect was clear and a 20% PSA response (at least 50% decrease) was observed,
without any link to the palliative effect. Based on the affinity of dihydrotestosterone (DHT) for the androgen
receptor, a large randomised trial (TARP) is ongoing comparing the effectiveness of bicalutamide 50 mg
combined with either dutasteride or placebo in non-metastatic CRPC (80). Addition of an anti-androgen, such
as bicalutamide or flutamide, to gonadal suppression at the time of PSA failure appears to result in declining
PSA in only a few patients (81-83).
17.8.2 Switching to an alternative anti-androgen therapy
There has been recent interest in another simple modality: the alternative anti-androgen therapy (84). After
CAB was stopped in 232 progressing patients (76% being M1b), a withdrawal effect was observed in 31 men
(15.1%). A second-line hormonal treatment was performed by giving an alternative non-steroidal drug (i.e. initial
flutamide was replaced by bicalutamide and vice versa). An overall > 50% decline in PSA was observed in 83
men (35.8%), irrespective of any previous withdrawal effect, which lasted more than 6 months. The higher the
PSA at the start of second-line therapy, the shorter was the progression-free survival and the lower was the
PSA response rate.
17.8.3 Anti-androgen withdrawal accompanied by simultaneous ketoconazole
The adrenal glands secrete approximately 10% of circulating androgen in humans. Some tumour cells in
androgen-independent states must retain androgen sensitivity, as a clinical response is induced by a further
decrease in circulating androgen levels following bilateral adrenalectomy or administration of drugs inhibiting
adrenal steroidogenesis.
Aminoglutethimide, ketoconazole and corticosteroids act mainly via this mechanism (85-89) to
produce a PSA response in about 25% of patients for about 4 months. However, the simultaneous addition of
ketoconazole to anti-androgen withdrawal, produced a significantly increased PSA response (32% vs 11%)
and a longer time to PSA progression (8.6 vs 5.9 months) compared to anti-androgen withdrawal alone (89).
17.8.4 Oestrogens
Prostate cancer usually expresses oestrogen receptors, which are upregulated after androgen ablation
in animal models. In-vitro oestrogens can activate mutant androgen receptors isolated from androgenindependent PCa, while high-dose oestrogens have achieved objective salvage responses. This may be due
to the mitotic arrest of direct cytotoxic effects on the cells, perhaps through an apoptotic mechanism (90,91).
Recently, diethylstilboestrol (DES) (92-94) achieved a positive PSA response between 24% and 80%, with an
overall estimated survival of 63% at 2 years. However, even at low doses of DES, about one-third (31%) of
patients developed deep venous thrombosis and 7% experienced myocardial infarction.
17.8.5 The future for anti-androgen agents
In the last 2 years, potential drugs have appeared in early phase I/II trials in CRPC and should be considered as
potential major new tools, provided the randomised phase III trials confirm the early results. Furthermore, they
confirm that the castrate-resistant status is far from meaning an hormonal-resistant status (see above Section
17.2).
17.8.5.1MDV3100
The first agent, MDV3100, is a novel anti-androgen which blocks AR transfer to the nucleus, in contrast to
currently available drugs where AR is able to transfer to the nucleus. This means that no agonist-like activity
should ever occur. At the ASCO 2009 meeting, a phase I/II trial on 140 CRPC was reported (95). In this dosefinding study, a PSA decline > 50% was seen in 57% chemo-naïve patients, and in 45% chemo-refractory
patients. Based on these results, a large phase III trial has been recently launched in metastatic CRPC patients
after chemotherapy, on more than 1,000 patients, with OS being the primary end-point.
17.8.5.2Abiraterone acetate
The second agent is the CYP17 inhibitor, abiraterone acetate. In CRPC patients, this drug is able to decrease
PSA > 50% in 85% chemo-naïve patients (96), by 50% after docetaxel (97,98), and even by 33% after
ketoconazole (98). In chemo-naïve patients, a PSA decline of > 90% is seen in up to 40% of patients (96).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
135
The largest cohort so far is based on 96 chemo-naïve men included in a phase I/II trial. At a dose
of 1000 mg, a PSA decline > 50% was observed in 67% and > 90% in 19% of patients. A partial response
(RECIST-based) was seen in 37% of patients. The median time to progression was about 1 year (7). These
very promising results have led to two large phase 3 trials: one in chemo-refractory patients (n = 1158, trial is
closed), the other in chemo-naïve patients (n = 1000, accrual is ongoing). In both trials, OS is the primary endpoint.
In conclusion, there are only preliminary results for both drugs, which are currently only available in
clinical trials. However, these agents represent a strong opportunity for the future treatment of CRPC based on
the level of response obtained (PSA and RECIST-based).
17.9
Non-hormonal therapy (cytotoxic agents)
Several proven chemotherapeutic options are available for metastatic disease in HRPC (Table 23). Multiple
trials are underway, using very different approaches through all the known pathways. A detailed review is far
beyond the scope of these guidelines (6), as most drugs are experimental, except perhaps docetaxel.
A significant improvement in median survival of about 2 months occurred with docetaxel-based
chemotherapy compared to mitoxantrone + prednisone therapy (99,100). In the SWOG 99-16 trial, pain relief
was similar in both groups, though side-effects occurred significantly more often with docetaxel than with
mitoxantrone.
Table 23: P
SA response rates, mean survival, time to progression, and pain reduction in the large,
prospective, randomised phase III trials of chemotherapy in patients with HRPC
Study
TAX 327
Mitoxantrone
Docetaxel, 75 mg/m2
Docetaxel, 30 mg/m2
SWOG 99-16
Mitoxantrone
Docetaxel/EMP
CALGB 9182
Hydrocortisone
Mitoxantrone/HC
Tannock et al.
Prednisone
Mitoxantrone/Pred
n
PSA decrease
> 50%
32%
45%1
48%1
Decrease in
pain
22%
35%3
31%
Survival
(months)
16.5
18.91
17.4
Time to progression
–
–
–
336
338
50%1
27%
–
–
17.52
15.6
6.3 months1
3.2 months
123
119
38%4
22%
–
–
12.3
12.6
2.3 months
3.7 months4
81
80
22%
33%
12%
29%2
–
–
43 weeks1
18 weeks
EMP = estramustine; HC = hydrocortisone; Pred = prednisone. 1p < 0.000; 2p = 0.001; 3p = 0.01; 4p < 0.03.
17.9.1 Timing of chemotherapy in metastatic HRPC
The timing of chemotherapy varies in metastatic HRPC. It is advisable to start it immediately in symptomatic
patients, if possible every 3 weeks, as this schedule is associated with an improvement in survival. However,
a weekly regimen will result in the same symptom improvement and must be considered in patients unable to
receive the optimal regimen (LE: 1b), as it is more effective than best supportive care (101). In asymptomatic
patients, timing is not so clear and must be discussed individually.
Several poor prognostic factors have been described, such as a PSA level > 114 ng/mL, PSA doubling
time (PSA-DT) < 55 days, or the presence of visceral metastases (102). A better risk group definition has been
recently presented, based on the TAX 327 study cohort. The predictive factors were visceral metastases,
pain, anaemia (Hb < 13 g/dL), bone scan progression, and prior estramustine before docetaxel. Patients
were categorised into three risk groups: good risk (0-1 factor), intermediate (2 factors) and high risk (3-4
factors), leading to three different median OS: 25.7, 18.7 and 12.8 months, respectively (103). In addition, two
independent studies have suggested that improved survival can be predicted by C-reactive protein (CRP)
levels < 8 mg/L (hazard ratio [HR], 2.96) (104,105). Age by itself is not a contraindication to docetaxel (106).
Currently, the only indication for chemotherapy in HRPC non-metastatic patients is inside clinical trials
and patients should be advised to participate.
17.9.2 Taxanes in combination therapy for HRPC
In an effort to improve treatment results further, several phase I and phase II trials are underway combining
taxanes with anti-bcl-2, calcitriol (trial stopped due to unexpected toxicity), exisulind, and thalidomide, resulting
in PSA responses of about 60% (107-110).
136
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
In a randomised phase II trial of docetaxel alone versus docetaxel + thalidomide (107), 75 men
with chemo-naïve HRPC were randomised to receive either docetaxel, 30 mg/m2 for 5 of every 6 weeks, or
docetaxel, at the same dose and schedule, plus thalidomide, 200 mg orally each day. A decline in the level
of PSA > 50% appeared more likely in the combination-treated group (53%) compared to the docetaxelalone treated group (37%) (not statistically significant). At 18 months, the median PFS and OS with docetaxel
+ thalidomide were 5.9 months and 68%, respectively, versus 3.7 months and 43% in the docetaxel-alone
group (not statistically significant). However, there were considerable side-effects, with thromboembolic events
occurring in 28% of the combination arm compared to no such events in the docetaxel arm. A recent phase III
trial in HRPC patients confirmed the potential interest of thalidomide compared to placebo in non-metastatic
patients with a PFS of 15 months versus 9.6 months (p = 0.0002) (111).
Small molecules are also being tested in combination with docetaxel, especially but not exclusively
those targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway. Following interesting results from
phases I/II trials, several large phase III trials (each including about 1,000 patients) are underway, using either
bevacizumab (a monoclonal antibody), aflibercept (VEGF trap), sunitinib (anti-VEGFR), or dasatinib (anti-Src).
17.9.3 Mitoxantrone combined with corticosteroids
Mitoxantrone combined with corticosteroids (112, 113) has been extensively studied primarily in patients with
symptomatic osseous lesions due to HRPC. In the CALGB 9182 study (113), 244 patients with symptomatic
metastatic HRPC were randomised to receive either mitoxantrone + hydrocortisone, 12 mg/m2 every 3 weeks,
or hydrocortisone alone. No differences were observed with regard to survival, PSA response, and median
time to progression. However, the QoL was significantly improved in the combination arm. In another trial
(112), 161 men with painful osseous metastases due to HRPC were randomised to receive mitoxantrone +
prednisone versus prednisone alone. There was a significant benefit in pain reduction in the combination group
(29%) versus prednisone alone (12%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, the duration of palliation was longer in patients
who received mitoxantrone (43 weeks vs 18 weeks, p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences with
regard to PSA response and median survival time. However, again, QoL was improved significantly due to pain
reduction.
17.9.4 Alternative combination treatment approaches
Encouraging results have been seen with alternative treatments evaluated in prospective clinical phase II
trials (114-117), including pegylated doxorubicin, vinorelbine, a combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin +
estramustine, a combination of vinblastine, doxorubicin + radionuclides, and a combination of docetaxel +
mitoxantrone. The lack of representative randomised phase III trials and unknown long-term efficacy are major
problems associated with all these studies.
17.9.5 Estramustine in combination therapies
The synergy observed for estramustine combined with other drugs that target microtubule action has
generated promising results in prospective clinical trials.
Estramustine + vinblastine is the most studied estramustine combination. Although different doses of
estramustine and vinblastine have been used in prospective randomised trials, significant PSA and measurable
responses have been reported in three separate studies. Although time to progression and frequency of
> 50% PSA decrease was significantly higher in the estramustine + vinblastine treatment arm, median survival
did not differ significantly between the estramustine and the estramustine + vinblastine arms (118). A recent
meta-analysis (119) concluded that the addition of estramustine to chemotherapy increased the time to PSA
progression and OS. However, there was a significant increased risk of thromboembolic events, up to 7%
(120), requiring systematic prevention with coumadin.
17.9.6 Oral cyclophosphamide
Intravenous cyclophosphamide has been tested in many trials. However, there is currently interest in oral
cyclophosphamide, which seems to be less toxic than intravenous cyclophosphamide and may have greater
activity. A study of oral cyclophosphamide + oral etoposide in 20 patients was similarly encouraging (121,122).
17.9.7 Cisplatin and carboplatin
Cisplatin and carboplatin have activity as single agents against PCa. They also have a well-documented
synergy with etoposide or paclitaxel in vitro in other malignancies, such as lung and ovarian cancer. As
estramustine is also synergistic with these drugs, combinations of these three agents are now being tested.
A combination of estramustine, etoposide and cisplatin (or carboplatin) has significant activity against poorly
differentiated HRPC. A combination of estramustine, etoposide and paclitaxel has produced high response
rates (116).
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
137
17.9.8 Suramin
Suramin activity against HRPC is likely to be mediated through the inhibition of binding of growth factors (e.g.
transforming growth factor beta) to their receptors. Recent results have renewed interest in suramin’s initial
promise in the treatment of HRPC (123-125).
17.9.9 Non-cytotoxic drugs: the vaccines
Vaccines have been studied for a long time in prostate cancer, with initially disappointing results. Recently,
a large phase III study (n = 500) confirmed the results from a previous phase III trial, which demonstrated an
OS survival benefit not linked to a PSA response or PFS (see above Section 17.3.1). In the first phase III trial,
a total of 127 CRPC patients were randomised to Sipuleucel-T (Provenge) or placebo (40), with cross-over at
progression allowed. The primary end-point was not reached (time to progression), but there was a significant
difference in OS (HR, 1.7), leading to the proof of principle of such an approach and to a second randomised
trial of 500 patients, with OS as the primary end-point. Again, a statistical benefit was observed (25.8 months
compared to 21.7 months; HR, 0.77; p = 0.03). Together with results from TRICOM (PROSTVAC), these are
the only positive results with PCa vaccines. However, the results point to a possible future for vaccination,
particularly as tolerability was very acceptable (no grade 3, and only transient grade 1 or 2 vaccine-related
adverse events).
17.9.10 Specific bone targets
Bone is a primary target for prostatic metastatic cells, leading to a rational for bone-protective drugs,
preventing cancer cells from colonising and developing bone. Besides zoledronic acid and denosumab (see
above Section 12.7.1), there are other promising drugs, mainly those targeting the endothelin-1 axis. The
first of these agents (atrasentan) resulted in clear biological responses, but questionable clinical results (126),
possibly secondary to an inappropriate trial design. However, the proof of principle has been made, and
second-generation blockers are under development after encouraging phase II trials (127), with large phase III
trials in CRPC, either without metastases (> 1,000 patients), with metastases (> 500 patients), or with docetaxel
(> 1,000 patients).
17.9.11 Salvage chemotherapy
Since all patients who receive docetaxel-based chemotherapy for HRPC will progress within 6 to 8 months,
there have been many clinical trials investigating the role of salvage chemotherapy. The results suggest the
most appropriate approaches are intermittent docetaxel chemotherapy (128,129), molecular-targeted therapy
(131,132) and second-line satraplatin (133).
Several groups have used second-line intermittent docetaxel in patients who had clearly responded
to first-line docetaxel (128-130). In general, a PSA response can be achieved in about 60% of patients with
a median time to progression of about 6 months, while treatment-associated toxicity is minimal and similar
to that of first-line docetaxel. Another, recently identified approach is molecular-targeted therapy (131-136)
though more research is needed in larger groups of patients.
Platinum-based chemotherapeutic regimes have been investigated in patients with HRPC. Although
the platinum complex, satraplatin, has shown activity against HRPC and some promise in clinical trials, the
FDA rejected it for HRPC in 2008.
Many new drugs, such as gefitinib, bevasusimab (phase III trial CALB 90401), oblimersen (phase
III trial EORTC 30021), and also a vaccine, G-Vax (136), are being tested in phase III trials. However, the
G-VAx trial has been stopped prematurely because of a significantly higher mortality in the treatment arm as
compared to the docetaxel control arm.
Positive results have been recently published from a prospective, randomised, phase III trial
comparing the therapeutic efficacy of the taxane derivate, cabazitaxel, + prednisone versus mitoxantrone +
prednisone in 755 patients with castration-resistant PCa, who had progressed after or during docetaxel-based
chemotherapy (137).
Patients received a maximum of 10 cycles of cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2) and mitoxantrone (12 mg/2),
respectively. In both treatment arms, patients also received 10 mg prednisone daily for the entire treatment
period. Overall survival was the primary endpoint and progression-free survival, treatment response and safety
were secondary endpoints.
Patients in the cabazitaxel arm experienced a significantly increased overall survival of 15.1 versus
12.7 months (p < 0.0001) in the mitoxantrone arm. The cabazitaxel treatment arm also showed significant
improvement in progression-free survival (2.8 vs 1.4 months, p < 0.0001), the objective response rate
according to RECIST criteria (14.4% vs 4.4%, p < 0.005), and the PSA response rate (39.2% vs 17.8%,
p < 0.0002).
Treatment-associated WHO grade 3-4 side-effects developed significantly more often in the
cabazitaxel arm, particularly hematological (68.2% vs 47.3%, p < 0.0002) and non-haematological toxicities
138
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
(57.4% vs 39.8%, p < 0.0002), respectively.
Conclusion:
According to the positive results of this prospective randomised clinical phase III trial (LE: 1), cabazitaxel
should be considered in the management of progressive CRPCA following docetaxel therapy.
17.10 Palliative therapeutic options
17.10.1 Painful bone metastases
Most patients with HRPC have painful bone metastases. External beam radiotherapy is highly effective
(138), even as single fraction (139). The two radioisotopes, strontium-89 and samarium-153, can partially
or completely decrease bone pain in up to 70% of patients, but should not be given too late when pain is
intractable. Early use can give rise to myelosuppression, making subsequent chemotherapy more difficult
(140), even though a recent phase I trial has demonstrated manageable haematological toxicity with repeated
administration of docetaxel and samarium-153. The use of samarium-153 as consolidation therapy, following
a clear docetaxel response, may also help with initially painful bone metastases (141). Palliative treatment with
another radioisotope emitter, radium-233, has shown very promising phase II results in patients with painful
bone metastases in terms of palliation and OS, and only a mild haematological toxicity (142).
17.10.2 Common complications due to bone metastases
Common complications due to skeletal metastases include bone pain, vertebral collapse or deformity
pathological fractures and spinal cord compression. Osteoporosis may also cause fractures and should be
prevented (see above). Cementation is an effective treatment of painful fracture, clearly improving both pain
and QoL (143). However, it is still important to offer standard palliative surgery, which can be very effective at
managing osteoblastic metastases (144,145).
Impending spinal cord compression is an emergency. It must be recognised early and patients
educated to recognise the warning signs. Once suspected, high-dose corticosteroids must be given and an
MRI performed as soon as possible. A systematic neurosurgery consultation should be planned to discuss a
possible decompression (146). Otherwise, external beam radiotherapy is the treatment of choice.
17.10.3 Bisphosphonates
Recently, bisphosphonates have been used to inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and osteoclast
precursors in HRPC to provide effective treatment of skeletal complications and to reduce pain or provide total
pain relief. In the largest single phase III trial (147), 643 patients who had HRPC with bone metastases were
randomised to receive zoledronic acid, 8 mg or 4 mg every 3 weeks for 15 consecutive months, or placebo. At
15 and 24 months of follow-up, patients treated with only 4 mg of zoledronic acid had fewer skeletal-related
events compared to the placebo group (44% vs 33%, p = 0.021) and fewer pathological fractures (13.1% vs
22.1%, p = 0.015). Furthermore, the time to first skeletal-related event was longer in the zoledronate group, so
improving QoL. Patients were initially randomised to 4 or 8 mg of zoledronic acid, but the 8 mg dosage was
later modified to 4 mg because of toxicity.
Currently, bisphosphonates can be proposed to patients with HRPC bone metastases to prevent
skeletal complications, even if the best dosing interval is unclear. At present, it is every 3 weeks or less. The
toxicity, e.g. jaw necrosis, of these drugs, especially aminobisphosphonate, must always be kept in mind
(148). Patients should have a dental examination before starting a bisphosphonate. The risk of jaw necrosis
is increased by a history of trauma, dental surgery or dental infection, as well as intravenous long-term
bisphosphonate administration (149).
Pain due to osseous metastases is one of the most debilitating complications of HRPC.
Bisphosphonates have been highly effective with a response rate of 70-80% in small, open trials, which,
associated with a low frequency of side-effects, makes bisphosphonates an ideal medication for palliative
therapy of advanced HRPC (150-152). Bisphosphonates should be considered early in the management of
symptomatic HRPC. Critical issues of palliation must be addressed when considering additional systemic
treatment, including management of pain, constipation, anorexia, nausea, fatigue and depression, which often
occur (i.e. palliative external beam radiation, cortisone, analgesics and anti-emetics).
Hormone-refractory PCa is usually a debilitating disease, often affecting the elderly male. A
multidisciplinary approach is often required with input from medical oncologists, radiation oncologists,
urologists, nurses, psychologists and social workers (153).
17.11 Summary of treatment after hormonal therapy
(Until results from randomized controlled trials on novel agents MDV3100 and Abiraterone become available
there are no significant changes in the treatment of PCa after hormonal therapy [34])
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
139
Recommendations
GR
It is recommended to stop anti-androgen therapy once PSA progression is documented.
B
o clear-cut recommendation can be made for the most effective drug for secondary hormonal
N
manipulations because data from randomised trials are scarce.
C
Comment: Four to six weeks after discontinuation of flutamide or bicalutamide, an eventual anti-androgen
withdrawal effect is apparent.
17.12 Recommendations for cytotoxic therapy in CRPC
GR
Patients with CRPCa should be counselled, managed and treated in a multidisciplinary team.
In non-metastatic CRPCa, cytotoxic therapy should only be used in clinical trials.
In patients with a PSA rise only, two consecutive increases of PSA serum levels above a previous
reference level should be documented.
Prior to treatment, testosterone serum levels should be below 32 ng/dL.
Prior to treatment, PSA serum levels should be > 2 ng/mL to assure correct interpretation of
therapeutic efficacy.
Potential benefits of cytotoxic therapy and expected side-effects should be discussed with each
individual patient.
In patients with metastatic CRPCa who are candidates for cytotoxic therapy, docetaxel at 75 mg/m2
every 3 weeks is the drug of choice since it has shown a significant survival benefit.
In patients with symptomatic osseous metastases due to CRPCa, either docetaxel or mitoxantrone
with prednisone or hydrocortisone are viable therapeutic options. If not contraindicated, docetaxel is
the preferred agent based on the significant advantage in pain relief.
In patients with relapse following first-line docetaxel chemotherapy, based on the results of
prospective randomised clinical phase III trials, Cabazitaxel and Abiraterone are regarded as firstchoice option for second-line treatment.
Second-line docetaxel may be considered in previously responding docetaxel-treated patients.
Otherwise treatment is to be tailored to the individual patients. In case patients are not eligible for
cabazitaxel or abiraterone, docetaxel is an option.
B
B
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
17.13 Recommendations for palliative management of CRPC
Recommendations
GR
Patients with symptomatic and extensive osseous metastases cannot benefit from medical treatment
with regard to prolongation of life.
A
Management of these patients has to be directed at improvement of QoL and mainly pain reduction.
A
Effective medical management with the highest efficacy and a low frequency of side-effects is the
major goal of therapy.
A
Bisphosphonates may be offered to patients with skeletal masses (mainly zoledronic acid has been
studied) to prevent osseous complications. However, the benefits must be balanced against the
toxicity of these agents, in particular jaw necrosis must be avoided.
A
Palliative treatments such as radionuclides, external beam radiotherapy, adequate use of analgesics
should be considered early in the management of painful osseous metastases.
B
Spinal surgery or decompressive radiotherapy are emergency surgeries which have to be considered
in patients with neurological symptoms might be an emergency.
A
17.14 References
1.
2.
140
Isaacs JT, Coffey DS. Adaptation vs selection as the mechanism responsible for the relapse of
prostatic cancer to androgen ablation therapy as studied in the Dunning R-3327-H adenocarcinoma.
Cancer Res 1981 Dec;41(12 Pt 1):5070-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7307008
Horoszewicz JS, Leong SS, Kawinski E, et al. LNCaP model of human prostatic carcinoma. Cancer
Res 1983 Apr;43(4):1809-18.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6831420
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
3.
4. 5.
6. 7. 8.
9.
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Taplin ME, Bubley GJ, Shuster TD, et al. Mutation of the androgen-receptor gene in metastatic
androgen-independent prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1995 May;332(21):1393-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7723794
Elo JP, Kvist L, Leinonen K, et al. Mutated human androgen receptor gene detected in a prostatic
cancer patient is also activated by estradiol. J Clin Endocr Metab 1995 Dec;80(12):3494-500.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8530589
Visakorpi T, Hyytinen E, Kovisto P, et al. Amplification of the androgen receptor gene is common
in recurrent prostate cancer from patients treated with androgen withdrawal. J Urol 1995;153:379A
(abstract #603).
Chi KN, Bjartell A, Dearnaley D, et al. Castration-resistant prostate cancer: from new pathophysiology
to new treatment targets.Eur Urol. 2009 Oct;56(4):594-605.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560857
Attard G, Cooper CS, de Bono JS. Steroid hormone receptors in prostate cancer: a hard habit to
break? Cancer Cell 2009 Dec 8;16(6):458-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19962664
Schröder FH. Progress in understanding androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC): a review of
potential endocrine-mediated mechanisms. Eur Urol 2008 Jun;53(6):1129-37.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18262723
Haldar S, Basu A, Croce CM. Bcl-2 is the guardian of microtubule integrity. Cancer Res 1997
Jan;57(2):229-33.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9000560
Navone NM, Troncoso P, Pisters LL, et al. p53 protein accumulation and gene mutation in the
progression of human prostate carcinoma. Natl Cancer Inst 1993 Oct;85(20):1657-69.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7692074
Stapleton AM, Timme TL, Gousse AE, et al. Primary human prostate cancer cells harboring p53
mutations are clonally expanded in metastases. Clin Cancer Res 1997 Aug;3(8):1389-97.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9815823
Bauer JJ, Sesterhenn IA, Mostofi FK, et al. Elevated levels of apoptosis regulator proteins p53 and
bcl-2 are independent prognostic biomarkers in surgically treated clinically localized prostate cancer.
J Urol 1996 Oct;156(4):1511-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8808919
Theodorescu D, Broder SR, Boyd JC, et al. p53, bcl-2 and retinoblastoma proteins as long-term
prognostic markers in localized carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997 Jul;158(1):131-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9186339
MacGrogan D, Bookstein R. Tumour suppressor genes in prostate cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 1997
Feb;8(1):11-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9299577
Chi KN. Targeting Bcl-2 with oblimersen for patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer. World J
Urol 2005 Feb;23(1):33-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15723221
Zhang Z, Li M, Wang H, Agrawal S, et al. Antisense therapy targeting MDM2 oncogene in prostate
cancer: Effects on proliferation, apoptosis, multiple gene expression, and chemotherapy. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 2003 Sep;100(20):11636-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13130078
Verhagen PC, van Duijn PW, Hermans KG, et al. The PTEN gene in locally progressive prostate cancer
is preferentially inactivated by bi-allelic gene deletion. J Pathol 2006 Apr;208(5):699-707.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16402365
Kim IY, Ahn HJ, Zelner DJ, et al. Loss of expression of transforming growth factor beta type I and type
II receptors correlates with tumour grade in human prostate cancer tissues. Clin Cancer Res 1996
Aug;2(8):1255-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9816295
Hu R, Dunn TA, Wei S, et al. Ligand-independent androgen receptor variants derived from splicing of
cryptic exons signify hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2009 Jan;69(1):16-22.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19117982
Mohler JL, Gregory CW, Ford OH 3rd,et al. The androgen axis in recurrent prostate cancer. Clin
Cancer Res 2004 Jan;10(2):440-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14760063
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
141
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
30.
31.
32.
33. 34.
35.
36.
37. 142
Koivisto PA, Schleutker J, Helin H, et al. Androgen receptor gene amplification: a possible molecular
mechanism for androgen deprivation therapy failure in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 1999 Nov;
5(11):3578-82.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10589774
Mitsiades N, Schultz N, Taylor BS, et al; Prostate Cancer Genome Project Group. Increased
expression of androgen receptor (AR) and enzymes involved in androgen synthesis in metastatic
prostate cancer: Targets for novel personalized therapies. J Clin Oncol 27:15s, 2009 (suppl; abstract
#5002)
http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_
view&confID=65&abstractID=31770
Linja MJ, Savinainen KJ, Saramäki OR, et al. Amplification and overexpression of androgen receptor
gene in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2001 May 1;61(9):3550-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11325816
Ruijter E, van de Kaa C, Miller G, et al. Molecular genetics and epidemiology of prostate carcinoma.
Endocr Rev 1999 Feb;20(1):22-45.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10047972
Montgomery RB, Mostaghel EA, Vessella R, et al. Maintenance of intratumoral androgens in
metastatic prostate cancer: a mechanism for castration-resistant tumor growth. Cancer Res 2008
Jun;68(11):4447-54.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18519708
Locke JA, Guns ES, Lubik AA, et al. Androgen levels increase by intratumoral de novo steroidogenesis
during progression of castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2008 Aug;68(15):6407-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18676866
Stanbrough M, Bubley GJ, Ross K, et al. Increased expression of genes converting adrenal androgens
to testosterone in androgen-independent prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2006 Mar;66(5):2815-25.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16510604
Furuya Y, Krajewski S, Epstein JI, et al. Expression of bcl-2 and the progression of human and rodent
prostate cancers. Clin Cancer Res 1996 Feb;2(2):389-98.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9816182
Taplin ME, Rajeshkumar B, Halabi S, et al; Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study 9663. Androgen
receptor mutations in androgen-independent prostate cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study
9663. Clin Oncol 2003 Jul;21(14):2673-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12860943
Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor
genes in prostate cancer. Science 2005 Oct;310(5748):644-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16254181
Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I, et al; Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. Design and
end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of
testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol
2008 Mar;26(7): 1148-59.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309951
Oh WK, Kantoff PW. Management of hormone refractory prostate cancer: current standards and
future prospects. J Urol 1998 Oct;160(4):1220-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9751323
Bubley GJ, Carducci M, Dahut W, et al. Eligibility and response guidelines for phase II clinical trials
in androgen-independent prostate cancer: recommendations from the Prostate-Specific Antigen
Working Group. J Clin Oncol 1999 Nov;17(11):3461-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10550143
Heidenreich A, von Knobloch R, Hofmann R. Current status of cytotoxic chemotherapy in hormone
refractory prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2001 Feb;39(2):121-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11223670
Waselenko JK, Dawson NA. Management of progressive metastatic prostate cancer. Oncology
(Huntingt) 1997 Oct;11(10):1551-60; discussion 1560-3,1567-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9348559
Logothetis CJ, Hoosein NM, Hsieh JT. The clinical and biological study of androgen independent
prostate cancer (AI PCa). Semin Oncol 1994 Oct;21(5):620-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7524155
Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours:
revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19097774
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
38.
39.
40.
41. 42. 43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54. Tombal B, Rezazadeh A, Therasse P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the axial skeleton enables
objective measurement of tumor response on prostate cancer bone metastases. Prostate 2005 Oct;
65(2):178-87.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15948151
Scher HI, Mazumdar M, Kelly WK. Clinical trials in relapsed prostate cancer: defining the target. J Natl
Cancer Inst 1996 Nov;88(22):1623-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8931606
Small EJ, Schellhammer PF, Higano CS, et al. Placebo-controlled phase III trial of immunologic
therapy with sipuleucel-T (APC8015) in patients with metastatic, asymptomatic hormone refractory
prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006 Jul;24(19):3089-94.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16809734
Kantoff P W, Schuetz T, Blumenstein BA, et al. Overall survival (OS) analysis of a phase II randomized
controlled trial (RCT) of a poxviral-based PSA targeted immunotherapy in metastatic castrationresistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). J Clin Oncol 27:15s, 2009 (suppl; abstract #5013)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20100959
Bellmunt J, Rosenberg JE, Choueiri TK. Recent progress and pitfalls in testing novel agents in
castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009 Oct;56(4):606-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19635642
Dawson NA, McLeod DG. The assessment of treatment outcomes in metastatic prostate cancer:
changing endpoints. Eur J Cancer 1997 Apr;33(4):560-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9274435
Kelly WK, Scher HI, Mazurmdar M, et al. Prostate-specific antigen as a measure of disease outcome
in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993 Apr;11(4):607-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7683043
Sella A, Kilbourn R, Amato R, et al. Phase II study of ketoconazole combined with weekly doxorubicin
in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1994 Apr;12(4):683-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7512126
Pienta KJ, Redman B, Hussain M, et al. Phase II evaluation of oral estramustine and oral etoposide in
hormone-refractory adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Clin Oncol 1994 Oct;12(10):2005-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7523606
Hudes GR, Greenberg R, Krigel RL, et al. Phase II study of estramustine and vinblastine, two
microtubule inhibitors, in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992 nov;10(11):1754-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1383436
Tannock IF, Osoba D, Stockler MR, et al. Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or
prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a Canadian randomized trial
with palliative endpoints. J Clin Oncol 1996 Jun;14(6):1756-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8656243
George DJ, Kantoff PW. Prognostic indicators in hormone refractory prostate cancer. Urol Clin North
Am 1999 May;26(2):303-10, viii.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10361553
Scher HI, Curley T, Geller N, et al. Trimetrexate in prostatic cancer: preliminary observations on the
use of prostate-specific antigen and acid phosphatase as a marker in measurable hormone-refractory
disease. J Clin Oncol 1990 Nov;8(11):1830-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1700078
Kelly WK, Scher HI, Mazurmdar M, et al. Prostate-specific antigen as a measure of disease outcome
in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993 Apr;11(4):607-15.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7683043
Smith DC, Dunn RL, Strawderman MS, et al. Change in serum prostate-specific antigen as a
marker of response to cytotoxic therapy for hormone-refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998
May;16(5):1835-43.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9586898
Ghossein RA, Rosai J, Scher HI, et al. Prognostic significance of detection of prostate-specific
antigen transcripts in the peripheral blood of patients with metastatic androgen-independent prostatic
carcinoma. Urology 1997 Jul;50(1):100-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9218026
Scher HI, Jia X, de Bono JS, et al. Circulating tumour cells as prognostic markers in progressive,
castration-resistant prostate cancer: a reanalysis of IMMC38 trial data. Lancet Oncol 2009 Mar;
10(3):233-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19213602
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
143
55. 56. 57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62. 63. 64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
144
Helo P, Cronin AM, Danila DC, et al. Circulating prostate tumor cells detected by reverse transcriptionPCR in men with localized or castration-refractory prostate cancer: concordance with CellSearch
assay and association with bone metastases and with survival. Clin Chem 2009 Apr;55(4):765-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19233911
Goodman OB Jr, Fink LM, Symanowski JT, et al. Circulating tumor cells in patients with castrationresistant prostate cancer baseline values and correlation with prognostic factors. Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev 2009 Jun;18(6):1904-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19505924
Heidenreich A, Hofmann R, Engelmann UH. The use of bisphosphonates for the palliative treatment of
painful bone metastasis due to hormone refractory prostate cancer. J Urol 2001 Jan;165(1):136-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11125382
Klugo RC, Farah RN, Cerny JC. Bilateral orchiectomy for carcinoma of the prostate. Response of
serum testosterone and clinical response to subsequent estrogen therapy. Urology 1981 Jan;17(1):
49-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7456197
Manni A, Bartholomew M, Caplan R, et al. Androgen priming and chemotherapy in advanced prostate
cancer: evaluation of determinants of clinical outcome. J Clin Oncol 1988 Sep;6(9):1456-66.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3047336
Taylor CD, Elson P, Trump DL. Importance of continued testicular suppression in hormone-refractory
prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993 nov;11(11):2167-72.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8229130
Hussain M, Wolf M, Marshall E, et al. Effects of continued androgen deprivation therapy and other
prognostic factors on response and survival in phase II chemotherapy trials for hormone-refractory
prostate cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group report. J Clin Oncol 1994 Sep;12(9):1868-75.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8083710
Szmulewitz R, Mohile S, Posadas E, et al. A randomized phase 1 study of testosterone replacement
for patients with low-risk castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009 Jul;56(1):97-103.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19282098
Morris MJ, Huang D, Kelly WK, et al. Phase 1 trial of high-dose exogenous testosterone in patients
with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2009 Aug;56(2):237-44.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19375217
Ryan CJ, Small EJ. Role of secondary hormonal therapy in the management of recurrent disease.
Urology 2003 Dec;62(Suppl 1):87-94.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14747046
Kelly WK, Scher HI. Prostate specific antigen decline after antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome. J Urol
1993 Mar;149(3):607-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7679759
Scher HI, Kelly WK. Flutamide withdrawal syndrome: its impact on clinical trials in hormone-refractory
prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993 Aug;11(8):1566-72.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7687666
Small EJ, Carroll PR. Prostate-specific antigen decline after casodex withdrawal: evidence for an
antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome. Urology 1994 Mar;43(3):408-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7510915
Dawson NA, McLeod DG. Dramatic prostate specific antigen decline in response to discontinuation of
megestrol acetate in advanced prostate cancer: expansion of the antiandrogen withdrawal syndrome.
J Urol 1995 Jun;153(6):1946-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7538601
Small EJ, Vogelzang NJ. Second-line hormonal therapy for advanced prostate cancer: a shifting
paradigm. J Clin Oncol 1997 Jan;15(1):382-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8996165
Blackledge GRP, Lowery K. Role of prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of outcome in prostate
cancer. Prostate Suppl 1994;5:34-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7513530
Scher HI, Liebertz C, Kelly WK, et al. Bicalutamide for advanced prostate cancer: the natural versus
treated history of disease. J Clin Oncol 1997 Aug;15(8):2928-38.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9256137
Joyce R, Fenton MA, Rode P, et al. High dose bicalutamide for androgen independent prostate
cancer: effect of prior hormonal therapy. J Urol 1998 Jan;159(1):149-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9400459
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79. 80. 81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
Kucuk O, Blumenstein B, Moinpour C, et al. Phase II trial of Casodex in advanced prostate cancer
(CaP) patients who failed conventional hormonal manipulations: a Southwest Oncology Group study
(SWOG 9235). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol (ASCO) 1996;15:245 (abstr).
Osborn JL, Smith DC, Trump DL. Megestrol acetate in the treatment of hormone refractory prostate
cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1997 Jun;20(3):308-10.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9167760
Gebbia V, Testa A, Gebbia N. Prospective randomized trial of two dose levels of megestrol acetate in
the management of anorexia-cachexia syndrome in patients with metastatic cancer. Br J Cancer 1996
Jun;73(12):1576-80.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8664133
Dawson NA, Conaway M, Halabi S, et al. A randomized study comparing standard versus moderately
high dose megestrol acetate for patients with advanced prostate carcinoma: cancer and leukaemia
group B study 9181. Cancer 2000 Feb;88(4):825-34.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10679652
Sartor AO, Tangen CM, Hussain MH, et al; Southwest Oncology Group. Antiandrogen withdrawal in
castrate-refractory prostate cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group trial (SWOG 9426). Cancer 2008
Jun;112(11):2393-400.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18383517
McLeod DG. Antiandrogenic drugs. Cancer 1993 Feb;71(3 Suppl):1046-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8428326
Kucuk O, Fisher E, Moinpour CM, et al. Phase II trial of bicalutamide in patients with advanced
prostate cancer in whom conventional hormonal therapy failed: a Southwest Oncology Group study
(SWOG 9235). Urology 2001 Jul;58(1):53-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11445479
Sartor O, Gomella LG, Gagnier P, et al. Dutasteride and bicalutamide in patients with hormonerefractory prostate cancer: the Therapy Assessed by Rising PSA (TARP) study rationale and design.
Can J Urol 2009 Oct;16(5):4806-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19796455
Wilding G. Endocrine control of prostate cancer. Cancer Surv 1995;23:43-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7621473
Dawson NA. Treatment of progressive metastatic prostate cancer (published erratum of serious
dosage error appears in Oncology (Huntingt) 1993 Jun;7(6):2). Oncology 1993 May;7(5):17-24, 27;
discussion 27-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8512779
Fowler JE Jr, Pandey P, Seaver LE, et al. Prostate specific antigen after gonadal androgen withdrawal
deferred flutamide treatment. J Urol 1995 Aug;154(2 Pt 1):448-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7541862
Suzuki H, Okihara K, Miyake H, et al; Nonsteroidal Antiandrogen Sequential Alternation for Prostate
Cancer Study Group. Alternative nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy for advanced prostate cancer that
relapsed after initial maximum androgen blockade. J Urol 2008 Sep;180(3):921-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18635218
Sartor O, Cooper M, Weinberger M, et al. Surprising activity of flutamide withdrawal, when combined
with aminoglutethimide, in treatment of ‘hormone refractory’ prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994
Feb;86(3):222-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7506794
Dupont A, Gomez JL, Cusan L, et al. Response to flutamide withdrawal in advanced prostate cancer
in progression under combination therapy. J Urol 1993 Sep;150(3):908-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7688437
Rochlitz CF, Damon LE, Russi MB, et al. Cytotoxicity of ketoconazole in malignant cell lines. Cancer
Chemother Pharmacol 1988;21(4):319-22.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3370740
Mahler C, Verhelst J, Denis L. Ketoconazole and liarozole in the treatment of advanced prostatic
cancer. Cancer 1993 Feb;71(3 Suppl):1068-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8428329
Small EJ, Halabi S, Dawson NA, et al. Antiandrogen withdrawal alone or in combination with
ketokonazole in androgenindependent prostate cancer patients: a phase III trial (CALGB 9583). J Clin
Oncol 2004 Mar;22(6):1025-33.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15020604
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
145
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95. 96. 97. 98. 99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
146
Ferro MA, Gillatt D, Symes MO, et al. High-dose intravenous estrogen therapy in advanced prostatic
carcinoma. Use of serum prostate-specific antigen to monitor response. Urology 1989 Sep;34(3):
134-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2476882
Robertson CN, Roberson KM, Padilla GM, et al. Induction of apoptosis by diethylstilbestrol in
hormone-insensitive prostate cancer cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996 Jul;88(13):908-17.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8656443
Smith DC, Redman BG, Flaherty LE, et al. A phase II trial of oral diethylbestrol as a second line
hormonal agent in advanced prostate cancer. Urology 1998 Aug;52(2):257-60.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9697791
Klotz L, McNeill I, Fleshner N. A phase 1-2 trial of diethylbestrol plus low dose warfarin in advanced
prostate carcinoma. J Urol 1999 Jan;161(1):169-72.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10037391
Oh WK, Kanthoff PW, Weinberg V, et al. Prospective, multicentre, randomized phase II trial of the
herbal supplement PC-SPES and diethylbestrol in patients with androgen-independent prostate
cancer. Clin Oncol 2004 Sep;22(18):3705-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15289492
Scher HI, Beer TM, Higano CS, et al, The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium. Antitumor
activity of MDV3100 in a phase I/II study of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). J Clin Oncol
27:15s, 2009 (suppl; abstract #5011).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20398925
Ryan C, Efstathiou E, Smith M, et al. Phase II multicenter study of chemotherapy (chemo)-naive
castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) not exposed to ketoconazole (keto), treated with
abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone. J Clin Oncol 27:15s, 2009 (suppl; abstract #5046)
http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_
view&confID=65&abstractID=34693
Reid AH, Attard G, Danila D, et al. A multicenter phase II study of abiraterone acetate (AA) in docetaxel
pretreated castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients (pts). J Clin Oncol 27:15s, 2009
(suppl; abstract #5047)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20159814
Danila DC, de Bono J, Ryan CJ, et al. Phase II multicenter study of abiraterone acetate (AA) plus
prednisone therapy in docetaxel-treated castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients (pts):
Impact of prior ketoconazole (keto). J Clin Oncol 27:15s, 2009 (suppl; abstr 5048)
http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_
view&confID=65&abstractID=31591
Petrylak DP, Tangen CM, Hussain MH, et al. Docetaxel and estramustine compared with mitoxantrone
and prednisone for advanced refractory prostate cancer. New Engl J Med 2004 Oct;351(15):1513-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15470214
Tannock IF, de Wit R, Berry WR, et al, TAX 327 Investigators. Docetaxel plus prednisone or
mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer. New Engl J Med 2004 Oct;351(15):
1502-12.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15470213
Fosså SD, Jacobsen AB, Ginman C, et al. Weekly docetaxel and prednisolone versus prednisolone
alone in androgen-independent prostate cancer: a randomized phase II study. Eur Urol 2007
Dec;52(6):1691-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17306441
Eisenberger M, Garrett-Mayer ES, Ou Yang Y, et al. multivariate prognostic nomogram incorporating
PSA kinetics in hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer (HRPC). Abstract. ASCO Annual
Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition). J Clin Oncol 2007;25(18S): #5058.
http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/18_suppl/5058
Armstrong AJ, Halabi S, Tannock IF, et al. Development of risk groups in metastatic castrationresistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) to facilitate the identification of active chemotherapy regimens.
J Clin Oncol 27:15s, 2009 (suppl; abstract #5137).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20005697
Graff J, Lalani AS, Lee S, et al, ASCENT Investigators. C-reactive protein as a prognostic marker for
men with androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC): Results from the ASCENT trial. Abstract.
ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition). J Clin Oncol 2007;25(18S):abstract #5074.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18428198
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113. 114.
115. 116.
115.
117.
118. Prins R, Rademacher BL, Mongoue-Tchokote S, et al. C-reactive protein as adverse prognostic
marker for men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC): Confirmatory results.
J Clin Oncol 27:15s, 2009 (suppl; abstract #5168)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Bompas E, Italiano A, Ortholan C, et al. Docetaxel-based chemotherapy in elderly patients (> 75 years)
with castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC): A French National study of 175 patients. Abstract.
ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition). J Clin Oncol 2008;26(15S): #5145.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18706755
Dahut WL, Gulley JL, Arlen PM, et al. Randomized phase II trial of docetaxel plus thalidomide in
androgen-independent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004 Jul;22(13):2532-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15226321
Tolcher AW. Preliminary phase I results of G3139 (bcl-2 antisense oligonucleotide) therapy in
combination with docetaxel in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 2001 Aug;28(4 Suppl
15):67-70.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11685732
Beer TM, Hough KM, Garzotto M, et al. Weekly high-dose calcitriol and docetaxel in advanced
prostate cancer. Semin Oncol 2001 Aug;28(4 Suppl 15):49-55.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11685729
Ryan CW, Stadler WM, Vogelzang NJ. Docetaxel and exisulind in hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
Semin Oncol 2001 Aug;28(4 Suppl 15):56-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11685730
Figg W, Aragon-Ching JB, Steinberg, et al. Randomized phase III trial of thalidomide (Th) or placebo
(P) for non-metastatic PSA recurrent prostate cancer (PCa) treated with intermittent therapy. Abstract.
ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition). J Clin Oncol 2008;26(15S): abstract
#5016.
http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/15_suppl/5016/
Tannock IF, Osoba D, Stockler MR, et al. Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or
prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a Canadian randomized trial
with palliative end points. J Clin Oncol 1996 Jun;14(6):1756-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8656243
Kanthoff PW, Halabi S, Conaway M, et al. Hydrocortisone with or without mitoxantrone in men with
hormone-refractory prostate cancer: results of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9182 Study. J Clin
Oncol 1999 Aug;17(8):2506-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10561316
Heidenreich A, Sommer F, Ohlmann CH, et al. Prospective randomized phase II trial of pegylated
doxorubicin in the management of symptomatic hormone refractory prostate carcinoma. Cancer 2004
Sep;101(5):948-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15329902
Savarese DM, Halabi S, Hars V, et al. Phase II study of docetaxel, estramustine, and low-dose
hydrocortisone in men with hormone refractory prostate cancer: a final report of CALGB 9780. Cancer
and Leukemia Group B. J Clin Oncol 2001 May;19(9):2509-16.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11331330
Smith DC, Chay CH, Dunn RL, et al. Phase II trial of paclitaxel, estramustine, etoposide and
carboplatin in the treatment of patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Cancer 2003
Jul;98(2):269-76.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12872344
Oudard S, Caty A, Humblet Y, et al. Phase II study of vinorelbine in patients with androgenindependent prostate cancer. Ann Oncol 2001 Jun;12(6):847-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11484963
Heidenreich A, Carl S, Gleissner S, et al. Docetaxel (DOC) and mitoxantrone (MIT) in the management
of hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 22: 2003 (abstract #1655).
http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=23&abstractID
=101719
Albrecht W, Van Poppel H, Horenblas S, et al. Randomized Phase II trial assessing estramustine and
vinblastine combination chemotherapy vs estramustine alone in patients with progressive hormoneescaped metastatic prostate cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004 Jan 12;90(1):100-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14710214
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
147
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126. 127. 128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
148
Fizazi K, Le Maitre A, Hudes G, et al; Meta-analysis of Estramustine in Prostate Cancer (MECaP)
Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Addition of estramustine to chemotherapy and survival of patients with
castration-refractory prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 2007
Nov;8(11):994-1000.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17942366
Lubiniecki GM, Berlin JA, Weinstein RB, et al; Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics of the University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA; Presbyterian Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Risk of
thromboembolic events (TE) with estramustine-based chemotherapy in hormone-refractory prostate
cancer (HRPC): results of a meta-analysis. Abstract. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22: #1581.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15536625
Maulard-Durdux C, Dufour B, Hennequin C, et al. Phase II study of the oral cyclophosphamide
and oral etoposide combination in hormone-refractory prostate carcinoma patients. Cancer 1996
Mar;77(6):1144-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8635136
Nelius T, Klatte T, de Riese W, et al. Clinical outcome of patients with docetaxel-resistant hormonerefractory prostate cancer treated with second-line cyclophosphamide-based metronomic
chemotherapy. Med Oncol 2009 Apr 14. [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19365737
Dawson NA, Cooper MR, Figg WD, et al. Antitumour activity of suramin in hormone-refractory prostate
cancer controlling for hydrocortisone treatment and flutamide withdrawal as potentially confounding
variables. Cancer 1995 Aug;76(3):453-62.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8625127
Kelly WK, Curley T, Liebretz C, et al. Prospective evaluation of hydrocortisone and suramin in patients
with androgen-independent prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995 Sep;13(9):2208-13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7545218
Small EJ, Halabi S, Ratain MJ, et al. Randomized study of three different doses of suramin
administered with a fixed dosing shedule in patients with advanced prostate cancer: results of
intergroup 0159, cancer and leukaemia group B 9480. J Clin Oncol 2002 Aug;20(16):3369-75.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12177096
Carducci MA, Saad F, Abrahamsson PA, et al; Atrasentan Phase III Study Group Institutions. A phase
3 randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of atrasentan in men with metastatic hormonerefractory prostate cancer. Cancer 2007 Nov;110(9):1959-66.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17886253
James ND, Caty A, Borre M, et al. Safety and efficacy of the specific endothelin-A receptor antagonist
ZD4054 in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases who were pain free
or mildly symptomatic: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 2 trial. Eur Urol 2009
May;55(5):1112-23.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19042080
Beer TM, Garzotto M, Henner WD, et al. Multiple cycles of intermittent chemotherapy in metastatic
androgen-independent prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2004;91(8):1425-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15467765
Ohlmann C, Ozgur E, Wille S, et al. Second-line chemotherapy with docetaxel for prostate-specific
antigen relapse in men with hormone refractory prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel
based chemotherapy. Eur Urol Suppl 2006;5(2):93, abstract #289.
Ohlmann C, Ozgur E, Engelmann U, et al. Molecular triggered therapy in hormone refractory prostate
cancer. Eur Urol Suppl 2006;5(2):93, abstract #281.
Lara PN Jr, Twardowski P, Quinn DI. Angiogenesis-targeted therapies in prostate cancer. Clin
Prostate Cancer 2004 Dec;3(3):165-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15636683
Sternberg CN, Petrylak DP, Sartor O, et al. Multinational, double-blind, phase III study of prednisone
and either satraplatin or placebo in patients with castrate-refractory prostate cancer progressing after
prior chemotherapy: the SPARC trial. J Clin Oncol 2009 Nov 10;27(32):5431-8
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19805692
Ansari J, Hussain SA, Zarkar A, et al. Docetaxel re-treatment for metastatic hormone refractory
prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(15S):abstract #16016.
http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/15_suppl/16066
Lara PN Jr, Twardowski P, Quinn DI. Angiogenesis-targeted therapies in prostate cancer. Clin
Prostate Cancer 2004 Dec;3(3):165-73.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15636683
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151. Periman PO, Sonpavde G, Bernold DM, et al. Sunitinib malate for metastatic castration resistant
prostate cancer following docetaxel-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(15S):abstract #5157.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19633050
Small EJ, Schellhamme PF, Higano CS, et al. Results of a placebo-controlled phase III trial of
immunotherapy with APC8015 for patients with hormone refractory prostate Cancer (HRPC). J Clin
Oncol 2005;23(16S):abstract #4500.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16809734
Sartor AO, Oudard S, Ozguroglu M, et al: for the TROPIC Investigators. Cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone
with prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously
treated with docetaxel: Final results of a multinational phase III trial (TROPIC). 2010 Genitourinary
Cancers Symposium, abstract #9
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20888992
Dy SM, Asch SM, Naeim A, et al. Evidence-based standards for cancer pain management. J Clin
Oncol 2008 Aug;26(23):3879-85.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18688056
Hartsell WF, Scott CB, Bruner DW, et al. Randomized trial of short- versus long-course radiotherapy
for palliation of painful bone metastases. Natl Cancer Inst 2005 Jun;97(11):798-804.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15928300
Liepe K, Kotzerke J. A comparative study of 188Re-HEDP, 186Re-HEDP, 153Sm-EDTMP and 89Sr in
the treatment of painful skeletal metastases. Nucl Med Commun 2007 Aug;28(8):623-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17625384
Morris MJ, Pandit-Taskar N, Stephenson RD, et al. Phase I study of docetaxel (Tax) and 153Sm
repetitively administered for castrate metastatic prostate cancer (CMPC). ). Abstract. J Clin Oncol May
2008;26(15S): #5001.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364960
Laplanche A, Beuzeboc P, Lumbroso J, et al. A phase II trial of docetaxel and samarium in patients
with bone metastases from castration-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC). Abstract. J Clin Oncol Jun
2007;25(18S): #5122.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364971
Nilsson S, Franzén L, Tyrrell C, et al. Radium-223 in the treatment of metastatic hormone refractory
prostate cancer (HRPC): Results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II study. Abstract. J
Clin Oncol Jun 2007;25(18S): #5071.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17544845
Dutka J, Sosin P. Time of survival and quality of life of the patients operatively treated due to
pathological fractures due to bone metastases. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2003 Jun;5(3):276-83.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18034018
Frankel BM, Jones T, Wang C. Segmental polymethylmethacrylate-augmented pedicle screw fixation
in patients with bone softening caused by osteoporosis and metastatic tumor involvement: a clinical
evaluation. Neurosurgery 2007 Sep;61(3):531-7; discussion 537-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17881965
Marco RA, Sheth DS, Boland PJ, et al. Functional and oncological outcome of acetabular
reconstruction for the treatment of metastatic disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000 May;82(5):642-51.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10819275
George R, Jeba J, Ramkumar G, et al. Interventions for the treatment of metastatic extradural spinal
cord compression in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 Oct:8;(4):CD006716.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18843728
Saad F, Gleason DM, Murray R, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of zoledronic acid in
patients with hormone refractory metastatic prostate carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 Oct;
94(19):1458-68.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12359855
Aapro M, Abrahamsson PA, Body JJ, et al. Guidance on the use of bisphosphonates in solid tumours:
recommendations of an international expert panel. Ann Oncol 2008 Mar;19(3):420-32.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17906299
Diel IJ, Fogelman I, Al-Nawas B, et al. Pathophysiology, risk factors and management of
bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw: Is there a diverse relationship of amino- and
non-aminobisphosphonates? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2007 Dec;64(3):198-207.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17855108
Heidenreich A, Hofmann R, Engelmann. UH The use of bisphosphonate for the palliative treatment of
painful bone metastasis due to hormone refractory prostate cancer. J Urol 2001 Jan;165(1):136-40.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11125382
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
149
152.
153.
150
Heidenreich A, Elert A, Hofmann R. Ibandronate in the treatment of prostate cancer associated painful
osseous metastases. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2002;5(3):231-5.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12496987
Esper PS, Pienta KJ. Supportive care in the patient with hormone refractory prostate cancer. Semin
Urol Oncol 1997 Feb;15(1):56-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9050140
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
18. ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT
This list is not comprehensive for the most common abbreviations
3D-US
ADT
AS
ASCO ASTRO
AUA
BDFS
BMD
bNED CAB
CaP
CPA
CRT
CSAP
CSS
CT
DES
DRE
DHT
DSS
EBRT
ECE
ECOG
eLND
ELND
e-MRI
EORTC
EPC
EPCP
ER-β ESRPC
FACT-P
FNAB
FSH
GI
GR
GU
HD EBRT
HDR
HIFU
HR
HRPC
HRQoL
HT
IAD
IGRT
IMRT
IPSS
LDAT
LDR
LE
LET
LH LHRH
LHRHa
LND
LRP three-dimensional ultrasound
androgen-deprivation therapy
active surveillance
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
American Urological Association
biochemical disease-free survival
bone mineral density
actuarial biochemical freedom from disease
complete (or maximal or total) androgen blockade
cancer of the prostate
cyproterone acetate
conformal radiotherapy
cryosurgical ablation of the prostate
cancer-specific survival
computed tomography
diethylstilboestrol
digital rectal anticipation
dihydrostestosterone
disease-specific survival
external beam radiation therapy
extracapsular extension
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
extended lymph node dissection
elective lymph node dissection
endorectal MRI
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer
Early Prostate Cancer Trialists’ Group
Early Prostate Cancer Programme
oestrogen receptor-β
European Randomized Screening for Prostate Cancer
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-prostate
fine-needle aspiration biopsy
follicle-stimulating hormone
gastrointestinal
grade of recommendation
genitourinary
high-dose EBRT
high-dose rate
high-intensity focused ultrasound
hazard ratio
hormone-refractory prostate cancer
health-related quality of life
hormonal therapy
intermittent androgen deprivation
image-guided radiotherapy
intensity modulated radiotherapy
International Prostatic Symptom Score
long-term ADT
low-dose rate (LDR)
level of evidence
linear energy transfer
luteinising hormone
luteinising hormone-releasing hormone
luteinising hormone-releasing hormone analogue
lymph node dissection
laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
UPDATE JANUARY 2011
151
MRC
Medical Research Council
MRI
magnetic resonance imaging
MRSI
magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging
NHT
neoadjvant hormonal therapy
NIH
National Institutes of Health
NVB
neurovascular bundle
OR
odds ratio
OS overall survival
PAP
prostate acid phosphatase
PCa
prostate cancer
PET
positron emission tomography
PFS progression-free survival
PIN
prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia
PIVOT Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: VA/NCI/AHRQ Cooperative Studies
Program #407
PLCO
Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovary
PSA
prostate-specific antigen
PSA-ACT
PSA complexed to antichymotrypsin
PSADT
PSA doubling time
PSAV
PSA velocity
PSMA
prostate-specific membrane antigen for messenger RNA
QoL
quality of life
QUALYs
quality of life adjusted gain in life
RALP
robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
RITA
radio-frequency interstitial tumour ablation
RP radical prostatectomy
RRP
radical retropubic prostatectomy
RTOG
Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
SEER
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results
SLN
sentinel lymph node
SPCG-4
Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4
STAD
short-term androgen deprivation
SVI
seminal vesicle invasion
SWOG South West Oncology Group
TNM
Tumour Node Metastasis
TZ
transition zone
TRUS
transrectal ultrasound
TURP
transurethral resection of the prostate
UICC
Union Against Cancer
USPIO
ultra-small super-paramagnetic iron oxide particles
VACURG
Veterans Administration Co-operative Urological Research Group
WHO
World Health Organization
WW
watchful waiting
Conflict of interest
All members of the Prostate Cancer Guidelines working group have provided disclosure statements on all
relationships that they have and that might be perceived to be a potential source of conflict of interest. This
information is kept on file in the European Association of Urology Central Office database. This guidelines
document was developed with the financial support of the European Association of Urology. No external
sources of funding and support have been involved. The EAU is a non-profit organisation and funding is limited
to administrative assistance and travel and meeting expenses. No honoraria or other reimbursements have
been provided.
152
UPDATE JANUARY 2011